Attention, gun control supporters:

[mamooth]

Your views are:
1. "Obviously criminals do not obey the law..."

That's a stupid statement, being that it's so obviously contradicted by reality. Naturally, since it's completely wrong, the gun crowd believes it without question and has it form the basis of their completely illogical claims.

Thing is, criminals usually _do_ obey the law. It's not an either/or situation, that someone always obeys the law or always disobeys it. The world is not divided into "criminals who always break the law" and "law abiding people who don't." Out in the real world, it's a continuum. The harder it is to break a law, the less likely it is the law will be broken.

If you think otherwise, please explain for us why criminals aren't running around with belt-feed heavy machine guns mounted on the backs of pickup trucks. According to the "But criminals never obey the law!" dumb logic, that should be happening, because those criminals don't care about the law and always get guns anyways. Clearly, that logic is totally wrong.

Or look at England or Australia. No guns. How is that possible, since the gun crowd says criminals always break the law and get guns? Again, the gun crowd is just making a crazy stupid claim.

What's the key here? Consistent national standards. All those "illegal" guns start out as legally sold guns somewhere in the USA. Legal guns are moved to jurisdictions that ban them, where they become illegal guns. Apply the standard nationwide, and that can't happen anymore.

What that standard would be is a totally separate issue, which is not what this thread is about. Here, I'm just happily ripping apart the incredibly stupid logic of the gun crowd.

I also predict that none of the crybaby retards of the right on this thread will attempt to respond logically to this. None of those candyasses has ever addressed an issue honestly in the past, so they won't be starting now.

 

[daveman]

Your views are:
1. "Obviously criminals do not obey the law..."

That's a stupid statement, being that it's so obviously contradicted by reality. Naturally, since it's completely wrong, the gun crowd believes it without question and has it form the basis of their completely illogical claims.

Thing is, criminals usually _do_ obey the law. It's not an either/or situation, that someone always obeys the law or always disobeys it. The world is not divided into "criminals who always break the law" and "law abiding people who don't." Out in the real world, it's a continuum. The harder it is to break a law, the less likely it is the law will be broken.

If you think otherwise, please explain for us why criminals aren't running around with belt-feed heavy machine guns mounted on the backs of pickup trucks. According to the "But criminals never obey the law!" dumb logic, that should be happening, because those criminals don't care about the law and always get guns anyways. Clearly, that logic is totally wrong.

They don't run around with belt-feed heavy machine guns mounted on the backs of pickup trucks because belt-feed heavy machine guns are expensive. Moron.

Or look at England or Australia. No guns. How is that possible, since the gun crowd says criminals always break the law and get guns? Again, the gun crowd is just making a crazy stupid claim.

Check England's and Australia's violent crime stats. Yes, gun crime has gone down -- but violent crime has not.

What's the key here? Consistent national standards. All those "illegal" guns start out as legally sold guns somewhere in the USA. Legal guns are moved to jurisdictions that ban them, where they become illegal guns. Apply the standard nationwide, and that can't happen anymore.

Good idea. Repeal all state and local gun restrictions. Nationwide concealed carry. That way, you will have more responsible gun owners protecting themselves from crime.

What that standard would be is a totally separate issue, which is not what this thread is about. Here, I'm just happily ripping apart the incredibly stupid logic of the gun crowd.

Really? When are you going to start?

I also predict that none of the crybaby retards of the right on this thread will attempt to respond logically to this. None of those candyasses has ever addressed an issue honestly in the past, so they won't be starting now.

Anyone who whines that other people don't agree with him probably shouldn't be calling them candyasses.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

What an illogical question. Using your logic, drunk driving shouldn't be illegal since drunks are going to drive drunk anyway. You're suggesting that we shouldn't pass laws because criminals are going to break them, and that makes no sense.

But they punish the offender.. they don't take the brand of car the DD used off the market

I'm in favor of a similar approach to gun related crime. Use a gun to commit a crime, you automatically qualify for a lifetime sentence, or if someone died, the death penalty.

I do think acquiring an automatic weapon should be damned difficult. All a weapon like that does is provide a multiplier effect to how many people do die in a mass shooting. Use the Pro-Life crowd as a model. Thanks to Roe v Wade they can't make abortion illegal, but they've found a way to make it damned difficult to get an abortion in some states.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What an illogical question. Using your logic, drunk driving shouldn't be illegal since drunks are going to drive drunk anyway. You're suggesting that we shouldn't pass laws because criminals are going to break them, and that makes no sense.

But they punish the offender.. they don't take the brand of car the DD used off the market

I'm in favor of a similar approach to gun related crime. Use a gun to commit a crime, you automatically qualify for a lifetime sentence, or if someone died, the death penalty.

I do think acquiring an automatic weapon should be damned difficult. All a weapon like that does is provide a multiplier effect to how many people do die in a mass shooting.

Do you have any idea how long ago the last mass murder with automatic weapons happened?

I'm guessing the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

But they punish the offender.. they don't take the brand of car the DD used off the market

I'm in favor of a similar approach to gun related crime. Use a gun to commit a crime, you automatically qualify for a lifetime sentence, or if someone died, the death penalty.

I do think acquiring an automatic weapon should be damned difficult. All a weapon like that does is provide a multiplier effect to how many people do die in a mass shooting.

Do you have any idea how long ago the last mass murder with automatic weapons happened?

I'm guessing the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929...

Damn. Mistype on my part. I meant semi-automatic. If the loon had an automatic weapon we'd be facing a casualty count past 100.

I will be honest though. The more I read about this massacre the more difficult it looks like it'll be to stop a future event. The school had a decent security policy, the police reacted fast, the teachers acted selflessly and heroicly, the mother kept the weapons under lock and key, the kid had no prior record or history of violence... What do you fix here?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm in favor of a similar approach to gun related crime. Use a gun to commit a crime, you automatically qualify for a lifetime sentence, or if someone died, the death penalty.

I do think acquiring an automatic weapon should be damned difficult. All a weapon like that does is provide a multiplier effect to how many people do die in a mass shooting.

Do you have any idea how long ago the last mass murder with automatic weapons happened?

I'm guessing the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929...

Damn. Mistype on my part. I meant semi-automatic. If the loon had an automatic weapon we'd be facing a casualty count past 100.

I will be honest though. The more I read about this massacre the more difficult it looks like it'll be to stop a future event. The school had a decent security policy, the police reacted fast, the teachers acted selflessly and heroicly, the mother kept the weapons under lock and key, the kid had no prior record or history of violence... What do you fix here?

With that answer there's nothing much that can be done. However when he broke the glass and busted through the door if the principle had access to a firearm the story might be a little differently.

 

[Old Rocks]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

Attention gun supporters, shoot some kids today.

You guys are a hoot. It ain't the criminals that are shooting up our schools. Notice that? It is crazies like you people. Guns far more important than our children.

 

[JQPublic1]

More guns isn't the solution, and no one's claiming it is.

More guns in the hands of responsible owners is the solution.

And most of the left opposes that idea.

So, can you answer the question in the OP? No one else has been able to.

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

No, I have gotten no rational and workable answers. Period.

That is your opinion and opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Then again, some of you right wingers are so full of shit its hard to believe you have an asshole!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

Attention gun supporters, shoot some kids today.

You guys are a hoot. It ain't the criminals that are shooting up our schools. Notice that? It is crazies like you people. Guns far more important than our children.

OR crazy's like you

 

[bigrebnc1775]

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

No, I have gotten no rational and workable answers. Period.

That is your opinion and opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Then again, some of you right wingers are so full of shit its hard to believe you have an asshole!

Well, let's hear your workable solution?

 

[mamooth]

They don't run around with belt-feed heavy machine guns mounted on the backs of pickup trucks because belt-feed heavy machine guns are expensive. Moron.

And they're expensive because they're totally illegal, no one wants to touch them, and thus they're crazy rare. If they were legal, they could be had for a song.

As predicted, Dave would not address the actual issue, that a full nationwide restriction would be effective at preventing criminals from having whatever type of gun. Poor Dave hates it when his premise gets torn apart and he can't respond, hence why I enjoy doing it.

Anyways, you can't reason with crazy, so you just have to ignore them. And at this point, the nation is ignoring them. Actually, it's more like "shunning" than ignoring, given how bad their behavior is.

 

[JQPublic1]

More guns isn't the solution, and no one's claiming it is.

More guns in the hands of responsible owners is the solution.

And most of the left opposes that idea.

So, can you answer the question in the OP? No one else has been able to.

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

any gun could be an assault weapon....

any knife could be an assault weapon....

any rock could be an assault weapon.....

any car could be an assault weapon....

ad infinitum....

are you going to limit people from the millions of things that could be an assault weapon..........?

will permits for knives or baseball bats be next......?

Dammit we are talking about privately owned machines that are designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. To be specific, why don't we authenticate this debate by focusing on weapons similar to or like the one used in the elementary school massacre.

Any semi-automatic pistol or rifle can be converted to full automatic with a little expertise, a kit and hard work, Older model rifles like the M1 or M14 are easier to convert than modern weapons. Pistols are not the weapon of choice for conversion to full automatic.

All of this talk about cars, baseball bats and knives as assault weapons is nonsense since none of those items was specifically designed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction like a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon is. A semi automatic weapon in the hands of an experienced gamer who decides to practice on real people or a disgruntled marksman tea bagger could be fired as fast as he/she could pull the trigger; and with a great deal more accuracy than someone trying to use a fully automatic weapon.

 

[daveman]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

Attention gun supporters, shoot some kids today.

You guys are a hoot. It ain't the criminals that are shooting up our schools. Notice that? It is crazies like you people.

Hey, dumbfuck: When the CN shooter stole his mother's weapons, he became a criminal.

So, naturally, you refuse to hold him accountable.

Why are you soft on crime, Roxy?

Guns far more important than our children.

No one feels that way, retard. You can tell because we want armed people on site to protect our children.

You want teachers and school staff to remain unarmed.

How are those Gun Free Zones working out for you? Not too good, looks like.

 

[daveman]

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

No, I have gotten no rational and workable answers. Period.

That is your opinion and opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Then again, some of you right wingers are so full of shit its hard to believe you have an asshole!

That's nice. Run along now, boy.

 

[daveman]

They don't run around with belt-feed heavy machine guns mounted on the backs of pickup trucks because belt-feed heavy machine guns are expensive. Moron.

And they're expensive because they're totally illegal, no one wants to touch them, and thus they're crazy rare. If they were legal, they could be had for a song.

As predicted, Dave would not address the actual issue, that a full nationwide restriction would be effective at preventing criminals from having whatever type of gun. Poor Dave hates it when his premise gets torn apart and he can't respond, hence why I enjoy doing it.

Anyways, you can't reason with crazy, so you just have to ignore them. And at this point, the nation is ignoring them. Actually, it's more like "shunning" than ignoring, given how bad their behavior is.

I see you edited out the parts of my post you're uncomfortable with -- including the suggestion you look at violent crime rates in nations with full bans (hint: They DIDN'T go down).

Why is that? What are you afraid of?

Nevertheless, your progressive wet dream of an unarmed populace aside, it'll never happen.

Deal with it. Stop sniveling.

 

[Contumacious]

Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months."

.

 

[daveman]

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

any gun could be an assault weapon....

any knife could be an assault weapon....

any rock could be an assault weapon.....

any car could be an assault weapon....

ad infinitum....

are you going to limit people from the millions of things that could be an assault weapon..........?

will permits for knives or baseball bats be next......?

Dammit we are talking about privately owned machines that are designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. To be specific, why don't we authenticate this debate by focusing on weapons similar to or like the one used in the elementary school massacre.

Any semi-automatic pistol or rifle can be converted to full automatic with a little expertise, a kit and hard work, Older model rifles like the M1 or M14 are easier to convert than modern weapons. Pistols are not the weapon of choice for conversion to full automatic.

Meanwhile, in reality:

Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns
Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.379
Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.380
Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.381​

All of this talk about cars, baseball bats and knives as assault weapons is nonsense since none of those items was specifically designed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction like a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon is. A semi automatic weapon in the hands of an experienced gamer who decides to practice on real people or a disgruntled marksman tea bagger could be fired as fast as he/she could pull the trigger; and with a great deal more accuracy than someone trying to use a fully automatic weapon.

Rifles are not WMD. That is an absolutely ludicrous statement, and completely shreds whatever claim to credibility you might once have had.

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military
For the general purposes of national defense,[23] US Code[24] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

• any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
  
  [*]toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
  [*]a disease organism
  [*]radiation or radioactivity[25]​

For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[26] US Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons."[27]

[edit]Criminal (Civilian)
For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism,[28] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

• any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[29]
• any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
• any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
• any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[30]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[31]

• any explosive or incendiary device, as defined in Title 18 USC, Section 921: bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or other device with a charge of more than four ounces
• any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
• any weapon involving a disease organism
• any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
• any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[32] pipe bombs,[33] shoe bombs,[34] cactus needles coated with botulin toxin,[35] etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.​

Is it too much to ask that leftists stick with the established definitions of words, and not their hyperemotional, fear-mongering definitions?

 

[daveman]

Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months."

.

Lakhota was rootin' for the Germans.

 

[GuyPinestra]

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

any gun could be an assault weapon....

any knife could be an assault weapon....

any rock could be an assault weapon.....

any car could be an assault weapon....

ad infinitum....

are you going to limit people from the millions of things that could be an assault weapon..........?

will permits for knives or baseball bats be next......?

Dammit we are talking about privately owned machines that are designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. To be specific, why don't we authenticate this debate by focusing on weapons similar to or like the one used in the elementary school massacre.

Any semi-automatic pistol or rifle can be converted to full automatic with a little expertise, a kit and hard work, Older model rifles like the M1 or M14 are easier to convert than modern weapons. Pistols are not the weapon of choice for conversion to full automatic.

All of this talk about cars, baseball bats and knives as assault weapons is nonsense since none of those items was specifically designed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction like a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon is. A semi automatic weapon in the hands of an experienced gamer who decides to practice on real people or a disgruntled marksman tea bagger could be fired as fast as he/she could pull the trigger; and with a great deal more accuracy than someone trying to use a fully automatic weapon.

All your whining doesn't change the FACT that the Constitution GUARANTEES my RIGHT to own firearms, and all your whining won't change the FACT that you gun grabbers aren't going to win.

It's pansy-asses like you that would want to ban firearms and then send SOMEBODY ELSE to go TRY to round them up.

Chickenshit bitch.

Try to take 'em, it won't be EASY...

 

[GuyPinestra]

Is it too much to ask that leftists stick with the established definitions of words, and not their hyperemotional, fear-mongering definitions?

Yes...