Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

[strollingbones]

no its kinda sad to think that you think banning guns and collecting them will reduce violence......long before now....the shrinks have predicted the outcome of our society....the inner cities being slums overpacked with people would lead to violence....we are in the society that was depicted in 'future shock' and it will only get worse....but banning the rights of people to defend themselves will not change this....in counties where guns are banned..there is still gun violence and there is violence by machete in africa countries...evil will find an outlet...will it not?

now myself ....i am a liberal gun owner....you will never take my guns..simple as that...but i do know i cannot buy enough ammo to defeat the government...those people are out there...but so are you

 

[orogenicman]

no its kinda sad to think that you think banning guns and collecting them will reduce violence......long before now....the shrinks have predicted the outcome of our society....the inner cities being slums overpacked with people would lead to violence....we are in the society that was depicted in 'future shock' and it will only get worse....but banning the rights of people to defend themselves will not change this....in counties where guns are banned..there is still gun violence and there is violence by machete in africa countries...evil will find an outlet...will it not?

now myself ....i am a liberal gun owner....you will never take my guns..simple as that...but i do know i cannot buy enough ammo to defeat the government...those people are out there...but so are you

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

 

[bripat9643]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

Good answer.

 

[bripat9643]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

They couldn't have imagined television either. Does that mean we should abolish the First Amendment?

 

[orogenicman]

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

They couldn't have imagined television either. Does that mean we should abolish the First Amendment?

That is a poor analogy. The fact of the matter is that the second amendment was written in another time. Times have changed. Guns are not making people safe. It is a mathematical impossibility for 180 million guns in this country to make the American people safe from one another. 300 million would not make us any safer than 180 million. All it has ever lead to is heart ache.

 

[zeke]

They couldn't have imagined television either.

Fuck you are stupid. Really stupid.

What the founders couldn't have imagined is the number of really ignorant stupid people who are able to buy guns that the founders never even conceived of. Weapons to fire hundreds of rounds in seconds were not in the thought process of the founders. And if they were, they would have restricted ownership of such guns.

The founding fathers were pragmatic and reasonable.

You gun nutters today are fanatics and unreasonable and the reason I would never give up my guns. I am not worried so much about criminals. It's you fucking gun nutters that concern me.

Meanwhile down in Texas, a man shoots his daughter when the gun he was showing off discharged and his daughter was hit. He has been arrested. When he gets out of jail, I am sure some gun nutter will sell him another gun. Cause he's scared down there in Texas.

His daughter's pretty scared to. Of her dad with a gun.

 

[Flash]

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

The free speech of the day did not include radio, TV or the Internet so according to you that means we do not have free speech in those medias, correct?

 

[Flash]

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

The Founding Fathers were aware of gun violence in their day but that didn't stop them from understanding at the freedom to keep and bear arms was very important to the American people.

By the way, there were auto loaders available about the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Lewis and Clark took one with them on their Corps of Discovery in 1804.

 

[zeke]

The free speech of the day did not include radio, TV or the Internet so according to you that means we do not have free speech in those medias, correct?

Well I'll be damned. You finally, accidentally got something correct.

On radio and tv you definitely DO NOT have "free" speech. Try calling up your local tv or radio station and tell them you want 30 minutes air time to give a speech. And you want that time to be "free". The managers will laugh you off the phone. Wonder where in the world did the idiot come from.

You ever hear of tv or radio commentators getting fired for saying what was on their minds? No free speech then was there?

Now the internet comes close. As long as your searches stay in certain areas. But you go looking at terrorist web sites and see how long it is before someone at the NSA is taking a look at what you are doing. And if they don't like what you are doing, you won't be "free" for long.

Yea you got something correct and you didn't even mean to. You thought you were making a fine point about "freedom" didn't you?

 

[Flash]

Weapons to fire hundreds of rounds in seconds were not in the thought process of the founders. And if they were, they would have restricted ownership of such guns.

Exactly how do you know that?

The reason the Founding Fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was to give the people the freedom to protect themselves and to have the strength to hold the government accountable for oppression.

The fact some idiots and criminals occasionally use arms for illegal reasons I don't think would have changed their minds whatsoever.

You gun nutters today are fanatics and unreasonable and the reason I would never give up my guns. I am not worried so much about criminals. It's you fucking gun nutters that concern me.

It sounds like you are the crazy one. Maybe you are the one that should have his firearms taken away before you do something really stupid.

 

[zeke]

By the way, there were auto loaders available about the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Lewis and Clark took one with them on their Corps of Discovery in 1804.

Hell everyone knows an auto loader for a muzzle loaded weapon is EXACTLY the same as a one hundred round drum magazine in an automatic weapon. Right? Everybody knows this.

 

[martybegan]

By the way, there were auto loaders available about the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Lewis and Clark took one with them on their Corps of Discovery in 1804.

Hell everyone knows an auto loader for a muzzle loaded weapon is EXACTLY the same as a one hundred round drum magazine in an automatic weapon. Right? Everybody knows this.

and the internet is EXACTLY like pen and paper, or standing on a soapbox and giving a speech in the town square....

 

[Flash]

The free speech of the day did not include radio, TV or the Internet so according to you that means we do not have free speech in those medias, correct?

Well I'll be damned. You finally, accidentally got something correct.

On radio and tv you definitely DO NOT have "free" speech. Try calling up your local tv or radio station and tell them you want 30 minutes air time to give a speech. And you want that time to be "free". The managers will laugh you off the phone. Wonder where in the world did the idiot come from.

You ever hear of tv or radio commentators getting fired for saying what was on their minds? No free speech then was there?

Now the internet comes close. As long as your searches stay in certain areas. But you go looking at terrorist web sites and see how long it is before someone at the NSA is taking a look at what you are doing. And if they don't like what you are doing, you won't be "free" for long.

Yea you got something correct and you didn't even mean to. You thought you were making a fine point about "freedom" didn't you?

Convoluted reasoning because TV and radio are private businesses and control the content and has nothing to do with government rights.

You do understand the difference between ABC controlling the content of what they put on the air and the government controlling what ABC puts on the air, don't you?

The Bill of Rights gives ABC the right to free speech and the government can't interfere. The founding fathers never knew that one day a corporation like ABC could reach hundreds of millions of people, did they? If they did do you think that would have stopped them from including free speech in the Bill of Rights? I don't think so.

Yes the government spies on us and interfers with our free speech from time to time and that is wrong.

 

[Roadrunner]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

That certainly would increase my net worth by tens of thousands.

 

[Flash]

By the way, there were auto loaders available about the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. Lewis and Clark took one with them on their Corps of Discovery in 1804.

Hell everyone knows an auto loader for a muzzle loaded weapon is EXACTLY the same as a one hundred round drum magazine in an automatic weapon. Right? Everybody knows this.

The autoloader that Lewis and Clark took on their expedition that scared the hell out of the Indians was not muzzle loaded, it was magazine fed.

 

[zeke]

The reason the Founding Fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was to give the people the freedom to protect themselves and to have the strength to hold the government accountable for oppression.

And exactly how do you know this. Two can play at that stupid game.

Was there a standing army at the time the country was founded?

You answer that question first and truthfully and I will explain to you the rest of what you asked.

BTW, the fact there was't a standing army indicates the reason for the militia. And IF you were in the militia (which most men of a certain age were) and the militia was called out, the members needed to bring their own weapons. Cause there was no ready supply of weapons to hand out.

This bullshit about how the citizenry had to stay armed to defeat the new American government is a fantasy written by the NRA to sell more guns. And it has worked real well.

 

[Roadrunner]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..

The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.

Rampant feral children are taking the toll.

Remove the kids killing kids, and the suicides, from the numbers, and, there aren't so many gun deaths after all.

Refusal of a sub-culture to raise their kids to respect life is not an excuse to take away a natural right, the right to self-defense.

 

[Roadrunner]

Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.

Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?

No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.

The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.

That's a failed argument as per Heller

The founding fathers certainly could not have anticipated ordinary Americans being able to buy a gun that could mow an entire classroom of children down in seconds. Are you suggesting that they did?

They didn't envision gay marriage, or anchor babies, yet libs can find the justification for those things in the Constitution.

 

[zeke]

The autoloader that Lewis and Clark took on their expedition that scared the hell out of the Indians was not muzzle loaded, it was magazine fed.

OMG that's so wonderful. Was it just like the 100 round drum magazine in an automatic rifle? What fucking difference does it make.

How about this them. We limit weapons to those available when the Lewis and Clark expedition set out on their journey? You like that idea?

 

[Flash]

Erm, if there are no guns, there is no gun violence. People were defending themselves long before the invention of guns. And they didn't need an uzi to do it.

No cars, no car deaths.

If there were no cars there would not be 50,000 people a year dying on the roads. People got around long before the invention of cars. They don't need something that goes 60 MPH to get around do they?