91 Million Armed American Civilians Makes Me Feel Damned Good

[WinterBorn]

Prior to their crimes, what had they done to have a constitutional right revoked? Any of them felons? Any of them declared mentally incompetent?

Why do we have to wait for that? We shouldn't have to prove they aren't fit to have a gun, they should prove that they have.

The thing is, when one of these guys goes on a Spontaneous Expression of Second Amendment Rights (AKA A mass shooting Spree), we usually find out that EVERYONE in their lives knew they were nuts.

We found out Omar Mateen -

1) Had made terrorist threats against his coworkers.
2) Had been investigated by the FBI three times.
3) Had a dad who was a supporter of the Taliban
4) Had beaten his wife
5) Had expressed support for ISIS

And yet despite all that, they couldn't stop this guy from getting an AR-15 because, gosh darn it, he had a constitutional right!!!!

That's fucking crazy.

I ask the same question.

Denying the rights of everyone else is not the answer.

I think your 1st amendment rights should be curtailed.

It doesn't mean I want everyone else's curtailed.

Can you point out anyone who died because I said mean things to them?

Anyone?

33,000 people a year die from gun violence. Because some idiots have mistaken a badly written Militia Amendment for a right to own weapons.

1) Had made terrorist threats against his coworkers.
Obviously he was not prosecuted for it.

2) Had been investigated by the FBI three times.
Investigated? Any evidence that they found criminal activity?

3) Had a dad who was a supporter of the Taliban
So he should be convicted for his father's crimes?

4) Had beaten his wife
Obviously no one called the cops. If they had, the cops would have taken him to jail. And a conviction of domestic abuse means you can't buy a gun.

5) Had expressed support for ISIS
When did he do that? The night he killed people?


It was not a badly written anything. It was a guarantee that the people could always have a means to reject a tyrannical gov't.

Who gets to decide if the govt. is tyrannical?

Those being subjected to the tyranny.

That`s a non answer Con65. Anyway I believe our founders wanted us to vote politicians out of office, not murder them.

Yes they did. But they also recognized that citizens voting could be stopped. So they allowed a way to defeat that as well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You already shit this out.

It's still shit.

I'll keep saying it until you tell me WHY these guys should be able to get guns...

So what I can show you thousands of pictures of convicted rapists and make an argument that you should be made a eunuch because you have a penis be ause you are responsible for every rapist's bad acts

 

[my2¢]

91 million armed American civilians may make you feel good, but I'm holding out and am comfortable with only 82 million of them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

More reasonable than some of your fantasies of gun laws.

So letting a guy who is clearly disturbed walk out of your gun store with a machine gun and a 100 round clip is 'reasonable" to you.

"Looks like a well-regulated Militia type to me!!"

yup, that's completely reasonable!

You don't know how he looked when he bought the guns. He could have been in a suit and tie

 

[xband]

Dude did not buy a machine gun. You typically manage a fact or two mixed in your bull shit. You slipping.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a machine gun. (and, yes, I've fired the M16 for years, so I know exactly what these weapons can do.)

Yes, I'm sure it is in your mind. But that does not change the FACT that it was not a machine gun. You cannot change the definition of words for dramatic effect. And, since you have had the difference explained in numerous threads, this is you simply lying.

Enhance the story for dramatic effect to keep the reader interested but never lie.

 

[Conservative65]

Prior to their crimes, what had they done to have a constitutional right revoked? Any of them felons? Any of them declared mentally incompetent?

Why do we have to wait for that? We shouldn't have to prove they aren't fit to have a gun, they should prove that they have.

The thing is, when one of these guys goes on a Spontaneous Expression of Second Amendment Rights (AKA A mass shooting Spree), we usually find out that EVERYONE in their lives knew they were nuts.

We found out Omar Mateen -

1) Had made terrorist threats against his coworkers.
2) Had been investigated by the FBI three times.
3) Had a dad who was a supporter of the Taliban
4) Had beaten his wife
5) Had expressed support for ISIS

And yet despite all that, they couldn't stop this guy from getting an AR-15 because, gosh darn it, he had a constitutional right!!!!

That's fucking crazy.

I ask the same question.

Denying the rights of everyone else is not the answer.

I think your 1st amendment rights should be curtailed.

It doesn't mean I want everyone else's curtailed.

Can you point out anyone who died because I said mean things to them?

Anyone?

33,000 people a year die from gun violence. Because some idiots have mistaken a badly written Militia Amendment for a right to own weapons.

1) Had made terrorist threats against his coworkers.
Obviously he was not prosecuted for it.

2) Had been investigated by the FBI three times.
Investigated? Any evidence that they found criminal activity?

3) Had a dad who was a supporter of the Taliban
So he should be convicted for his father's crimes?

4) Had beaten his wife
Obviously no one called the cops. If they had, the cops would have taken him to jail. And a conviction of domestic abuse means you can't buy a gun.

5) Had expressed support for ISIS
When did he do that? The night he killed people?


It was not a badly written anything. It was a guarantee that the people could always have a means to reject a tyrannical gov't.

Who gets to decide if the govt. is tyrannical?

Those being subjected to the tyranny.

That`s a non answer Con65. Anyway I believe our founders wanted us to vote politicians out of office, not murder them.

No, it's one you don't like.

You automatically ASSumed I meant I meant what you stated. I also believe that the founders thought it should be done through the political arena. However, didn't they prove by their own actions what you seem to say they didn't believe in doing when they fought the representatives of King George?

 

[OldLady]

And you base this on what?? What sort of science is involved in your claim?

Posted it earlier in the thread. Gun owners are less than 22% of the population.

Batshit crazy Guns nuts are a smaller percentage than that. Sadly, we've let you dominate the conversation too much.

There is no way to accurately say how many people own guns since most firearms do not have to be registered.

These estimates rely on surveys and there is no way to check the veracity of the answers.

I know that when I get asked if I own guns I say "No." Most of my friends who own guns say they do the same thing
I don't refuse to answer the question as that would most likely get put down as a yes by the survey takers

Why? Are you a felon, a DV offender? On probation? Are your friends, as well?

I'm not a felon, a dv offender, on probation, etc. To my knowledge, none of my friends are either. However, when someone on a survey asks me questions I choose not to answer, it comes under the none of your fucking business category.

Whether or not I own guns comes under the same mindset when people tell me it's none of my business whether or not a woman has an abortion.

So Skull Pilot is your sock?

 

[OldLady]

Are you saying that someone possessing a gun he/she stole legally has it in their possession?

Prove what you say about illegal guns on the streets going down. You Liberals sure have a knack about saying things WILL happen as if they had already occurred.

No, what I'm saying is that a lot of those people saying their gun had been "stolen" had probably transferred it illegally. 75% of the traces found the original owner said the gun had been stolen, but the majority were not reported to police. Now, why would that be? If one of your guns were stolen, wouldn't you report it? Why wouldn't you?
I can't prove it would make it a difference unless it is tried, but if you were held responsible for a gun that left your possession without following the law, wouldn't you be more careful?

So we can hold a person liable if someone steals their car, drives drunk, and kills someone?

Criminal liability has to follow an act, and a desire to cause said act. Someone who has their gun stolen and doesn't report it doesn't have the desire for someone to go out and kill someone else with their stolen gun.

By Joey's logic, you should be able to prosecute the car dealer that sold you the car, if you use it to kill someone.

Ever notice all the hate the anti gunners show to the people who didn't use the gun to commit the crime.....? They want to just smash them......and only think of the actual trigger pullers as an after thought......they are really messed up in the head.....

They chastise someone like me that had a gun stolen from his LOCKED car that was sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. However, they say nothing about the thief that unlawfully went into that LOCKED car, while it was on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and took something that DIDN'T belong to him/her. Somehow they consider it my fault for not breaking the law and give a pass to the person that did, all the while, thinking background checks will stop things like that.

I wasn't chastising you for having a gun stolen. You reported it. That is what everyone should do. What is wrong with your reading skills?

 

[WinterBorn]

Dude did not buy a machine gun. You typically manage a fact or two mixed in your bull shit. You slipping.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a machine gun. (and, yes, I've fired the M16 for years, so I know exactly what these weapons can do.)

Let's clarify things a bit. By definition, a "machine gun" continues to fire as long as you hold the trigger back and have ammo.

If the gun cannot do that, it is not a machine gun. You could say "as far as I am concerned, a horse is a fish". But it doesn't change the facts of what a horse is.

 

[2aguy]

You have repeatedly said you want gun store clerks in prison based on what their customers do with a gun, despite the clerk following all the federal, state and local laws, and despite the clerk having no way of knowing what the customer plans to do. That is not "reasonable". You want guns banned. At least have the balls to be honest about it.

Yes, that's what I'd like to see. I'd also like to see all the Mormons sent to a Cult Deprogramming Camp, but heck, I'm willing to be reasonable, unlike you guys.

You know, guys who apparently think that someone who can't get on an airliner because the FBI thinks he might be a terrorist, but he's totally free to buy an AR-15 and a 100 round clip like Joker Holmes and Omar Mateen did.

The problem is YOU want to define reasonable.

No. The problem is that *you* don't think anything is reasonable

We have thousands of reasonable gun laws on the books already

well, not in all states. which is why guns come from the south up into NYC

the system of background checks should be good enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, abusers and people on the terrorist watch list.

and perhaps the way to view it is this.... about 90% of the people in this country agree on the above parameters. should they be thwarted because the NRA gives money to the people responsible for the governance of our country?

You do realize that the Orlando Night club shooter, the guy who murdered 49 men....whose father supports hilary clinton.......went through 3 background checks....one for his work as a security guard......one, 10 month deep investigation by the FBI......and one for each gun he purchased.....plus he had 3 interviews with 3 trained FBI interrogators......and they still gave him a pass...

How much more rigorous do you want background checks to be?

Criminals can't pass background checks...so they use people who can pass background checks....right now, for federal background checks..that is how they are getting guns to New York....so what will you do to improve background checks for people who can pass them already?

the 90% are uniformed on the issue..they take people like you for their word, not realizing that what you really want is gun registration like in Germany, Britain and Australia, which will then allow you to ban and confiscate guns at a later date.......

 

[2aguy]

The problem is YOU want to define reasonable.

No. The problem is that *you* don't think anything is reasonable

We have thousands of reasonable gun laws on the books already

well, not in all states. which is why guns come from the south up into NYC

the system of background checks should be good enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, abusers and people on the terrorist watch list.

and perhaps the way to view it is this.... about 90% of the people in this country agree on the above parameters. should they be thwarted because the NRA gives money to the people responsible for the governance of our country?

"the system of background checks should be good enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, abusers and people on the terrorist watch list."

Would you say someone that steals a gun is a criminal?

"about 90% of the people in this country agree on the above parameters."

I don't give a fuck what they believe. Just like with the abortion issue I'm told to butt out of, I'll apply what you Liberals apply there. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one.

so we should make murder legal since we can't stop all murders.

that is the most specious argument that NRA shills make.

Again with this stupid argument.....

We don't stop murders before they happen...we tell people murder is against the law and if you commit a murder you are arrested and sent to prison.....

We do the same thing with guns....it is against the law to commit a crime with a gun..if you do, you are arrested and sent to prison.....

See how that works? Why is that dynamic so hard for you guys?

 

[2aguy]

Nothing reasonable about it coward.

sounds reasonable to me. Sounds reasonable to most people.

Polling | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

• 74% of NRA members and 87% of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.2

A poll conducted in April 2012 found that 91% of respondents support background checks for gun purchasers.3

A February 2011 poll found that more than 83% of respondents in the five bellwether states of Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio, including more than 75% of gun owners, favor requiring all gun purchasers to pass a background check. Similarly, over 82% of poll respondents in these states, including more than 77% of gun owners, support requiring all sellers at gun shows to run background checks for all gun sales.4

sorry moron....the people who answered that poll don't know the issue.....lying to people about the issue, and then asking them a question isn't an accruate poll.....keep lying though....you aren't good at it...but you might get better with practice....

 

[2aguy]

That's because the Tylenol ITSELF was tainted. Are you putting something that can't shoot itself on that same level? If you you, you're an idiot.

Point was, until they could make it safe, they took it off the market. And it wasn't put back on the market until it was safe.

They didn't say, "Well, just seven people died, no problem"

Yet nothing about the person that stole it going into a LOCKED vehicle on PRIVATE PROPERTY taking something that DIDN'T , both of which are against the law

You have a point. As long as we let you g uys have LEGAL guns, crooks can steal them from you. so let's ban guns.

Oh. Wait. That's not where you were going, was it?

Guns that are defective are taken off the market and recalled.....if you are injured by a defective gun you can sue the gun maker....your point?

 

[2aguy]

The Tylenol itself could do that. Are you saying the gun can shoot itself?

You miss the point entirely so before I put you back on ignore...

Before the recall, you could pop open a tylanol and poison it. The company recalled all the Tylanol, destroyed it, and created new bottles that could not be tampered with.

Right now, guns are so easy to get that these guys can get them. They either bought guns themselves or took them from someone who could.

So until you tell me how you can keep these guys from getting guns, I'm completely good for recalling all the guns until you can tell me way that you can keep these guys from getting guns.

sorry.....357,000,000 guns in private hands....and guys like this kill less than 50 people in a year......

Americans use guns to stop guys like this and other violent criminals 1,500,000 times a year......

accidental car deaths....35,000

so your numbers don't add up...try again....

 

[2aguy]

You already shit this out.

It's still shit.

I'll keep saying it until you tell me WHY these guys should be able to get guns...

They shouldn't.....but nothing you want to do will stop them....they have all the gun laws you want in France...and French criminals get fully automatic rifles easily.....normal people can't get a gun to defend themselves .......terrorists in France easily get guns....like that muslim woman in your photos....killed 149 people in France with completely illegal, fully automatic rifles.....

You are wrong on all counts.....

200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s....there are now 357,000,000 guns in private hands in 2016...and our gun murder rate went down 49%.......guns aren't the problem.......and show us how you will stop these people before you disarm the people who will be their victims...

 

[2aguy]

More reasonable than some of your fantasies of gun laws.

So letting a guy who is clearly disturbed walk out of your gun store with a machine gun and a 100 round clip is 'reasonable" to you.

"Looks like a well-regulated Militia type to me!!"

yup, that's completely reasonable!

He didn't have a machine gun......he did pick a gun free zone that you morons created which allowed him to kill at will......and no one was able to stop him till the police arrived...that is on you....

 

[2aguy]

More reasonable than some of your fantasies of gun laws.

So letting a guy who is clearly disturbed walk out of your gun store with a machine gun and a 100 round clip is 'reasonable" to you.

"Looks like a well-regulated Militia type to me!!"

yup, that's completely reasonable!

Sorry moron.....guys like this...are not the problem......knives kill 1,500 people every year.......guys like this...under 20 most of the time....

Here....actual numbers from Mother Jones.......numbrer of mass shootings and number of victims...vs. number of people killed with knives....

Moron...knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956

Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285

---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones.......tell me Mother Jones is part of the NRA moron.....

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...

The list below comes from the old definition of 4 killed to make a shooting a mass shooting...if you now go to the link there are more than listed below...but that is because Mother Jones changed the list from the time I first posted it...and changed to obama's new standard of only 3 dead to make a mass shooting...

I have put obama's updated number in parenthesis..........

we will see....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2016....3

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 73.

2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

Deaths from mass shootings 2015..... 37

 

[2aguy]

Dude did not buy a machine gun. You typically manage a fact or two mixed in your bull shit. You slipping.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a machine gun. (and, yes, I've fired the M16 for years, so I know exactly what these weapons can do.)

then they are incredibly murder free........here are the actual numbers of mass public shootings with rifles that are not machine guns.....

So....my source......Mother Jones....has a record of mass shootings from 1982....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Total deaths from "Assault" rifles since 1982......157....over 34 years.....

And I will show you how many were murdered with knives, clubs and bare hands....

From the FBI homicide table 8, weapons used to commit murder...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2014....

Knives..... 1,567 in 2014 vs 157 for Assault rifles in 34 years including Sunday's....

Hands and feet....660 in 2014 vs. 157 for assault rifles in 34 years......

clubs.... 435 in 2014 vs. 157 for assault rifles for the last 34 years....

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you base this on what?? What sort of science is involved in your claim?

Posted it earlier in the thread. Gun owners are less than 22% of the population.

Batshit crazy Guns nuts are a smaller percentage than that. Sadly, we've let you dominate the conversation too much.

There is no way to accurately say how many people own guns since most firearms do not have to be registered.

These estimates rely on surveys and there is no way to check the veracity of the answers.

I know that when I get asked if I own guns I say "No." Most of my friends who own guns say they do the same thing
I don't refuse to answer the question as that would most likely get put down as a yes by the survey takers

Why? Are you a felon, a DV offender? On probation? Are your friends, as well?

I'm not a felon, a dv offender, on probation, etc. To my knowledge, none of my friends are either. However, when someone on a survey asks me questions I choose not to answer, it comes under the none of your fucking business category.

Whether or not I own guns comes under the same mindset when people tell me it's none of my business whether or not a woman has an abortion.

So Skull Pilot is your sock?

There is only one of me and that's all there will ever be
And I answered your question already

I don't tell people anything about my private life because it's none of their fucking business

 

[2aguy]

Prior to their crimes, what had they done to have a constitutional right revoked? Any of them felons? Any of them declared mentally incompetent?

Why do we have to wait for that? We shouldn't have to prove they aren't fit to have a gun, they should prove that they have.

The thing is, when one of these guys goes on a Spontaneous Expression of Second Amendment Rights (AKA A mass shooting Spree), we usually find out that EVERYONE in their lives knew they were nuts.

We found out Omar Mateen -

1) Had made terrorist threats against his coworkers.
2) Had been investigated by the FBI three times.
3) Had a dad who was a supporter of the Taliban
4) Had beaten his wife
5) Had expressed support for ISIS

And yet despite all that, they couldn't stop this guy from getting an AR-15 because, gosh darn it, he had a constitutional right!!!!

That's fucking crazy.

I ask the same question.

Denying the rights of everyone else is not the answer.

I think your 1st amendment rights should be curtailed.

It doesn't mean I want everyone else's curtailed.

Can you point out anyone who died because I said mean things to them?

Anyone?

33,000 people a year die from gun violence. Because some idiots have mistaken a badly written Militia Amendment for a right to own weapons.

1) Had made terrorist threats against his coworkers.
Obviously he was not prosecuted for it.

2) Had been investigated by the FBI three times.
Investigated? Any evidence that they found criminal activity?

3) Had a dad who was a supporter of the Taliban
So he should be convicted for his father's crimes?

4) Had beaten his wife
Obviously no one called the cops. If they had, the cops would have taken him to jail. And a conviction of domestic abuse means you can't buy a gun.

5) Had expressed support for ISIS
When did he do that? The night he killed people?


It was not a badly written anything. It was a guarantee that the people could always have a means to reject a tyrannical gov't.

Who gets to decide if the govt. is tyrannical?

Those being subjected to the tyranny.

That`s a non answer Con65. Anyway I believe our founders wanted us to vote politicians out of office, not murder them.

Until the politicians refused to leave when unelected...then the 2nd kicks in........read them sometime......