Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts

[2aguy]

If most Americans carried a gun it would soon boil down to the fastest draw. We could then have fast-draw and shoot contests. This could open new business opportunities, fast draw schools, fast draw holsters, new jackets that exposing the fast draw holster and so on. But the big change would be the two gun carrier, two holsters, two guns and able to shoot either equally well. For many it would be a childhood dream come true.

Wrong….this was said each time a state began the process of allowing concealed and open carry. The anti gunners said blood would run in the streets, every fender bender would be a shootout…and each time concealed carry passed the crime rate went down. In fact, we now have over 357 million guns in private hands and over 13 million people carrying guns for self defense, and our gun crime rate and gun murder rate has gone down, not up…dittos gun suicides and gun accidents…

YOu guys have been wrong every time you use that argument. Facts, the truth and reality show you are wrong, again and again.

 

[2aguy]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

What new laws are going to stop people from getting firearms if as you state there are people who don't follow the current laws ?

Again the question is do you think people with demonstrated anger issues should have access to guns?

How do you prove that? You lefties are the angriest people I have ever seen…and you actually commit most of the gun crime…I would be all for disarming democrats..that would reduce gun violence.

 

[candycorn]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

Were these crimes felonies? Have they been convicted?

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

I answered this.
You refused to comment.

No need to comment. Except is there any behavior that would give you guys a moment's pause?

My original response lists the conditions specified by the law.
You do understand that no one can be denied a gun unless the law says so, right?

Thanks to well constructed loopholes the law is meaningless (in other words just how you want it) which is why I asked for opinions

 

[candycorn]

Cop there....does nothing...white guy....

 

[candycorn]

Gee wonder where he went?

 

[hortysir]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

Were these crimes felonies? Have they been convicted?

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Repeating your question doesn't answer mine

 

[M14 Shooter]

Were these crimes felonies? Have they been convicted?

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

I answered this.
You refused to comment.

No need to comment. Except is there any behavior that would give you guys a moment's pause?

My original response lists the conditions specified by the law.
You do understand that no one can be denied a gun unless the law says so, right?

Thanks to well constructed loopholes...

What "loopholes"?
That you have to be convicted of a crime before you lose your right to a gun?
That "loophole', missy, is the 5th Amendment to the constitution.
Why do you hate the 5th amendment?

 

[candycorn]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

Were these crimes felonies? Have they been convicted?

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Repeating your question doesn't answer mine

Just asking your opinion

 

[regent]

If most Americans carried a gun it would soon boil down to the fastest draw. We could then have fast-draw and shoot contests. This could open new business opportunities, fast draw schools, fast draw holsters, new jackets that exposing the fast draw holster and so on. But the big change would be the two gun carrier, two holsters, two guns and able to shoot either equally well. For many it would be a childhood dream come true.

Wrong….this was said each time a state began the process of allowing concealed and open carry. The anti gunners said blood would run in the streets, every fender bender would be a shootout…and each time concealed carry passed the crime rate went down. In fact, we now have over 357 million guns in private hands and over 13 million people carrying guns for self defense, and our gun crime rate and gun murder rate has gone down, not up…dittos gun suicides and gun accidents…

YOu guys have been wrong every time you use that argument. Facts, the truth and reality show you are wrong, again and again.

Perhaps the real reason my futurama has not come to pass is that most Americans do not want to carry guns. If true, that brings up the question why do so many Americans not want to carry a gun, and of course the next question why would the few Americans that do carry guns, and not in more danger than most, want to carry a gun?

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

 

[koshergrl]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

Were these crimes felonies? Have they been convicted?

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

I answered this.
You refused to comment.

No need to comment. Except is there any behavior that would give you guys a moment's pause? Im sure the answer is a no as long as she/he is not found guilty

Well we object to muslims and nuts slaughtering children and other innocents...that gives us a lot of pause.

"The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.
"Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”
"The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”
"He praised the deputy’s response as “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. “He went to the thunder,” he said. “He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe.”
Colorado's school shooting -- over in 80 seconds - CNN.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I thank you for another of your completely meaningless responses.

 

[koshergrl]

If most Americans carried a gun it would soon boil down to the fastest draw. We could then have fast-draw and shoot contests. This could open new business opportunities, fast draw schools, fast draw holsters, new jackets that exposing the fast draw holster and so on. But the big change would be the two gun carrier, two holsters, two guns and able to shoot either equally well. For many it would be a childhood dream come true.

Wrong….this was said each time a state began the process of allowing concealed and open carry. The anti gunners said blood would run in the streets, every fender bender would be a shootout…and each time concealed carry passed the crime rate went down. In fact, we now have over 357 million guns in private hands and over 13 million people carrying guns for self defense, and our gun crime rate and gun murder rate has gone down, not up…dittos gun suicides and gun accidents…

YOu guys have been wrong every time you use that argument. Facts, the truth and reality show you are wrong, again and again.

Perhaps the real reason my futurama has not come to pass is that most Americans do not want to carry guns. If true, that brings up the question why do so many Americans not want to carry a gun, and of course the next question why would the few Americans that do carry guns, and not in more danger than most, want to carry a gun?

Because we are self sufficient, and want to stay that way. We don't want to ever be dependent on government goodwill and protection, because we recognize that those can fail.

 

[koshergrl]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I see you don't have a point.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I thank you for another of your completely meaningless responses.

Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I see you don't have a point.

Well,I guess none that would pierce your teabagger brain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I thank you for another of your completely meaningless responses.

Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't true.

The fact that it may be true doesn't make it any less meaningless.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I thank you for another of your completely meaningless responses.

Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't true.

The fact that it may be true doesn't make it any less meaningless.

Direct quote from your post.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law.

You said the above as a reason for no background checks. I gave you an example of where you are wrong. How is that not relevant?

 

[bendog]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I thank you for another of your completely meaningless responses.

You're welcome. My attempts to cure your intentional ignorance and the failure of schools to impart even the most base knowledge of American history continue

Guns Have Always Been Regulated

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I thank you for another of your completely meaningless responses.

Just because you want to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't true.

The fact that it may be true doesn't make it any less meaningless.

Direct quote from your post.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law.

This is correct.
Your response did nothing to change this - thus, your response was meaningless.