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

[2aguy]

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.

you mean the 1.6 million times a year, on average that guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives? Vs. 8-9,000 gun murders mainly committed by hang members in democrat controlled inner cities......


I hope you learned a little basic math in whatever government school that was controlled by the education wing of the democrat party that you attended......because 1.6 million is bigger than 8-9,000.....

Sooo....good people with guns are a positive not a negative....

 

[2aguy]

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?

yes...they did....because they knew that people would want to disarm citizens...so they created the 2nd Amendment way back then to stop it.....because they also feared a tyrannical government and did not want to see a disarmed population......

 

[2aguy]

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.

and they still slaughtered each other.....but in the days before guns....the strong, and the cruel enslaved and killed those who were weaker at their leisure.....guns changed that equation......the weak, the outnumbered finally had a way to stop the bad guys.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

if the government had them back then the founders would have wanted the citizens to have them as well....you would help yourself if you actually learned about our revolution and the men who won it....

 

[orogenicman]

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.

 

[Conservative65]

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

Really? He is talking about changing the laws, and then he is challenged to come and get the guns himself? And since he would not be in a position to be the person who enforces these new laws, you call him a pussy? Really?

And you wonder why people get pissed off at gun people? It is this "I won guns, so I am a badass and you are a pussy" mentality that a few keep spouting.

You want guns? Cool. Follow the rules and use them safely. Have a modicum of respect for the rest of the world, whether they show you any or not. That is what is needed. Not this "A gun is the best answer for everything"!

And I am a gun owner, shooter, and vehement defender of the 2nd Amendment. But jeez, lighten up with the bullshit. Make them look like the crazy ones.

He's talking about something the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to have taken away. My challenge to him, if you read it, was that if he thought so, he should personally put it into effect.

Anyone that wants to ban guns, like he does, has already shown he's crazy. I need do nothing else.

One thing I can guarantee you son is if I said I didn't think you should have something you have a right to own, I'd be the one to take it from you. I wouldn't be a puss like him and say it should happen then expect someone else to do it for me.

I follow the rules with gun ownership. What he is proposing is that the rules I've followed be made more stringent to fulfill some concept that by banning them, it will prevent those who would misuse them from doing so.

And he believes that assault rifles are a problem. I am sure he is supporting candidates that promise to fight to ban them. He isn't going to personally go around and collect them all up. He sounds like he is wanting to bring back the ban that Clinton put into effect.

Just like I worked to have the 10 Commandments monument removed from the Alabama Supreme Courthouse lobby. I am not a pussy because I didn't drive a forklift over myself. I worked within the system.


But my point is this nonsense of calling people pussys because they don't agree with you but are not going door to door to collect guns is bullshit. First off, be as active and work to protect our rights. And second, the name calling does the cause more harm than it does your image good. Internet badassery is always comical, son.

Read his posts. He is for banning ALL guns not just assault rifles.

If you actually did something to get something banned, while I may disagree with you about banning them, you actually DID something. He is saying it should be done and simply voting for those that would do it isn't doing anything. That is passive.

It isn't that he disagrees with me, it's that he says something should be done and isn't personally willing to do anything but run his mouth.

That you consider me an internet badass is comical BOY.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, at the time the US Constitution was written, the musket and the muzzle-loading rifle, were the arms of the day. But they were also the high tech weapons used by the military. The farmers and store owners had the same weapons as the top infantry soldiers.

So what you are saying is that everyone should have one of these:




Right.

No, I don't believe that is what I said at all.

Then you agree that there should be limits to what technology the citizenry has a right to possess. I agree.

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

Since they believed in the right to bear arms, they would respond by upholding that person's right. Since you want them banned, I can tell you how they would feel about you.

 

[Brain357]

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.

you mean the 1.6 million times a year, on average that guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives? Vs. 8-9,000 gun murders mainly committed by hang members in democrat controlled inner cities......


I hope you learned a little basic math in whatever government school that was controlled by the education wing of the democrat party that you attended......because 1.6 million is bigger than 8-9,000.....

Sooo....good people with guns are a positive not a negative....

Except the 1.6 million is made up. And Kleck admits that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior.

 

[orogenicman]

No one is saying such a thing. However, if I want to have what you call an assault rifle, I can whether you like it or not.

Only certain kinds. And not for long. Enjoy it while you can.

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

Really? He is talking about changing the laws, and then he is challenged to come and get the guns himself? And since he would not be in a position to be the person who enforces these new laws, you call him a pussy? Really?

And you wonder why people get pissed off at gun people? It is this "I won guns, so I am a badass and you are a pussy" mentality that a few keep spouting.

You want guns? Cool. Follow the rules and use them safely. Have a modicum of respect for the rest of the world, whether they show you any or not. That is what is needed. Not this "A gun is the best answer for everything"!

And I am a gun owner, shooter, and vehement defender of the 2nd Amendment. But jeez, lighten up with the bullshit. Make them look like the crazy ones.

I see that sort of thing all too often. I don't think it is going to ever change without new laws. which is yet another reason why I support stronger gun control measures.

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.

I think when we have over 65 million private gun owners, and less than 9,000 murders, you should look at the peoplecommitting the crimes. If the guns were the actual reason for the crimes, then why aren't there more.

If all the murders were committed by legally owned firearms (and we KNOW that is not accurate), then that still means only 0.014% of gun owners killed someone. Or 99.986% of gun owners have killed anyone.

If 99.986% of gun owners aren't killing people, the problem is not with the firearms but with the people.

 

[2aguy]

Lets see, in the past two day I have posted where two kids got their hands on loaded weapons and 1. killed his little brother 2, the other killed himself.

And not one of you fucks condemned the mind set that some gun owners seem to have that it is their right to keep a loaded weapon where a kid could get it.. The gun nutters fears overcomes their fucking common sense.

And you all help perpetuate that fear that says that everyone should have a gun. After all the gubmint is coming to take our guns away. Or is it the blacks? Be ready for the revolution and all that shit. You think irresponsible gun owners don't hear that bullshit and act accordingly? Honey get the guns the gubmints coming. I read it here all the time how gun nutters are READY to stand up and FIGHT for their guns. Crazy shit.

And of course you all will decry about how awful it is that these kids keep doing (killing themselves or another) this. But it has NOTHING to do with you and your beliefs. And nothing can be done about it. Or at least you all NEVER offer any ideas about how to stop those killings. Thats gun nutter bullshit.

Every single fucking time something like this occurs, it gives the real gun grabbers more reasons to grab.

And winter, I've gone around with you on this. You seem to advocate responsible gun ownership. But you sure as hell never take on a gun nutter. Why's that?.

and stupid fucks like you fight any attempt to teach gun safety in elementary schools where that knowledge will save children's lives....that is what we want...but you guys....those dead children help push your agenda, the hurt ours, we want kids to be safe from guns...you block the knowledge that will do that......

You want dead kids, not us.....

 

[Conservative65]

Only certain kinds. And not for long. Enjoy it while you can.

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

Really? He is talking about changing the laws, and then he is challenged to come and get the guns himself? And since he would not be in a position to be the person who enforces these new laws, you call him a pussy? Really?

And you wonder why people get pissed off at gun people? It is this "I won guns, so I am a badass and you are a pussy" mentality that a few keep spouting.

You want guns? Cool. Follow the rules and use them safely. Have a modicum of respect for the rest of the world, whether they show you any or not. That is what is needed. Not this "A gun is the best answer for everything"!

And I am a gun owner, shooter, and vehement defender of the 2nd Amendment. But jeez, lighten up with the bullshit. Make them look like the crazy ones.

I see that sort of thing all too often. I don't think it is going to ever change without new laws. which is yet another reason why I support stronger gun control measures.

You support banning guns.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only certain kinds. And not for long. Enjoy it while you can.

When should I expect you to personally come and try to take it?

I won't have to.

You wouldn't be able to nor do you have the guts to try pussy.

Really? He is talking about changing the laws, and then he is challenged to come and get the guns himself? And since he would not be in a position to be the person who enforces these new laws, you call him a pussy? Really?

And you wonder why people get pissed off at gun people? It is this "I won guns, so I am a badass and you are a pussy" mentality that a few keep spouting.

You want guns? Cool. Follow the rules and use them safely. Have a modicum of respect for the rest of the world, whether they show you any or not. That is what is needed. Not this "A gun is the best answer for everything"!

And I am a gun owner, shooter, and vehement defender of the 2nd Amendment. But jeez, lighten up with the bullshit. Make them look like the crazy ones.

I see that sort of thing all too often. I don't think it is going to ever change without new laws. which is yet another reason why I support stronger gun control measures.

Oh please. The fact that he called you a pussy is not a reason for stricter gun laws. He doesn't respect your political views? So what? That is a reason for stricter gun laws? Your side is just as guilty as his. Both are prone to name calling and bullshit.

 

[2aguy]

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.

you mean the 1.6 million times a year, on average that guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives? Vs. 8-9,000 gun murders mainly committed by hang members in democrat controlled inner cities......


I hope you learned a little basic math in whatever government school that was controlled by the education wing of the democrat party that you attended......because 1.6 million is bigger than 8-9,000.....

Sooo....good people with guns are a positive not a negative....

Except the 1.6 million is made up. And Kleck admits that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior.

No he didn't....quit lying Brain....

 

[Conservative65]

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.

I think when we have over 65 million private gun owners, and less than 9,000 murders, you should look at the peoplecommitting the crimes. If the guns were the actual reason for the crimes, then why aren't there more.

If all the murders were committed by legally owned firearms (and we KNOW that is not accurate), then that still means only 0.014% of gun owners killed someone. Or 99.986% of gun owners have killed anyone.

If 99.986% of gun owners aren't killing people, the problem is not with the firearms but with the people.

That is something on which we can agree. The reason I have such a problem with those wanting to severely limit or even ban guns is that they make it out as if the gun actually grew arms and legs, walked, then shot itself.

 

[2aguy]

I agree that claiming that the fact that muskets and swords were the weapons of the day when the 2nd Amendment was written has no real bearing on our situation today.

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.

it isn't repeated all across the country...in fact, there hasn't been an increase in these shootings...and it would help a lot if we got rid of gun free killing zones for crazies....

 

[Brain357]

Really? How do you think our founding fathers would respond to the average Joe owning assault weapons?

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.

I think when we have over 65 million private gun owners, and less than 9,000 murders, you should look at the peoplecommitting the crimes. If the guns were the actual reason for the crimes, then why aren't there more.

If all the murders were committed by legally owned firearms (and we KNOW that is not accurate), then that still means only 0.014% of gun owners killed someone. Or 99.986% of gun owners have killed anyone.

If 99.986% of gun owners aren't killing people, the problem is not with the firearms but with the people.

If only we could do something about mental health. Given the recent health care fight I don't see that happening. That was just the talk to distract away from guns.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

you mean the 1.6 million times a year, on average that guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives? Vs. 8-9,000 gun murders mainly committed by hang members in democrat controlled inner cities......


I hope you learned a little basic math in whatever government school that was controlled by the education wing of the democrat party that you attended......because 1.6 million is bigger than 8-9,000.....

Sooo....good people with guns are a positive not a negative....

The annual casualty rate from guns in this country from all incidents, not just protection, does not support your claim. Neither does the annual gun-related death toll in our inner cities. I know this is make up shit Thursday, but perhaps you ought to consider rephrasing your bullshit comment.

 

[Brain357]

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.

you mean the 1.6 million times a year, on average that guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives? Vs. 8-9,000 gun murders mainly committed by hang members in democrat controlled inner cities......


I hope you learned a little basic math in whatever government school that was controlled by the education wing of the democrat party that you attended......because 1.6 million is bigger than 8-9,000.....

Sooo....good people with guns are a positive not a negative....

Except the 1.6 million is made up. And Kleck admits that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior.

No he didn't....quit lying Brain....

Only one lying is you Bill
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

 

[WinterBorn]

I think they would not be as worried about that as they would about many, many other things.

Such as?

In their day the citizenry was prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation (or to start one). And the entire "assault weapons" thing is mostly cosmetics. I recall that the original ban had several criteria, including the ability to mount a bayonet. Like bayonets are a big problem.

And many Americans today are likewise prepared to be a soldier in defense of the nation. The difference is that today our soldiers don't have to bring their own guns to the fight.

Such as? Really? You really think that people owning semiautomatic rifles with a pistol grip & magazine is the single biggest problem facing our nation?

I think that when, in 2012, for instance, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns, it is a huge problem. I think that when a 20 year old man walks into an elementary school and kills children with an assault weapon, and we see this kind of thing repeated over and over again all across the county, it is a huge problem. Ignore it or justify it all you want, but when you do, count yourself as part of the problem.

I think when we have over 65 million private gun owners, and less than 9,000 murders, you should look at the peoplecommitting the crimes. If the guns were the actual reason for the crimes, then why aren't there more.

If all the murders were committed by legally owned firearms (and we KNOW that is not accurate), then that still means only 0.014% of gun owners killed someone. Or 99.986% of gun owners have killed anyone.

If 99.986% of gun owners aren't killing people, the problem is not with the firearms but with the people.

If only we could do something about mental health. Given the recent health care fight I don't see that happening. That was just the talk to distract away from guns.

I agree. We need to be better at treating the mentally ill.