Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?
No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.
I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here
What posts? I don't see anything. Oh look! A bird!
Ummm no. The vast majority of of property crime is done while the owner isn't around because it's easier. Safer too, yes but mostly criminals don't think that way. Effort expended vs gain realized is mostly what they think about (not in those words I'm sure).AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?
And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.
Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
It's not easier to burglarize an empty house, just much, much safer.
Of course you don't shoot rusty guns, but I don't know what that has to do with your stance against Ak"s. Any non stainless steel gun can rust if you don't keep it well oiled.
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.
Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.Because the leftist call for more gun control will have no effect on crime or gun deaths why call for more gun control unless it's the goal to take guns from private citizens?See that, OP? Three posts in a row have called out your strawman. In fact the only post that did not, already self-identified as "not a Liberal".
Also you might want to look up the definition of the word tenure.
Fox news told him so.
That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Speaking of Uninformed, it couldn't have anything to do with your obstinate resistance to using the term Liberal properly, even after you've been schooled therein, and what it says about your mendacity.
Naaah, couldn't be that.
You derail almost every topic with that definition crap. Cut it out already and start sticking to the subject of the thread.
And y'all mendacitymongers always piss your collective pants when your lie is called out for what it is.
Tough titty. Until you quit doing it, the beatings will continue.
Then you will end up on the ignore list which very, very few people are on.
And still, numbers don't lie.That is such a fucking lie.I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.
Your point=dipshit?
You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.
GTFO HERE
We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.
I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.
.
Yes, it is a fantasy. You and your redneck buddies would evaporate like spit in a frying pan against any reasonably well trained SWAT team, much less a squad of American infantry.It's not fantasy...If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Not for hunting.
Not for target shooting.
Why?
BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?
And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.
Williams: Second Amendment Exists to Protect Us From Government
Ummm no. The vast majority of of property crime is done while the owner isn't around because it's easier. Safer too, yes but mostly criminals don't think that way. Effort expended vs gain realized is mostly what they think about (not in those words I'm sure).
And you totally missed the point on my statement about AKs.
So, we don't need anymore gun regulation?The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.
Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.
Good. I agree.
End of discussion.
Ummm no. The vast majority of of property crime is done while the owner isn't around because it's easier. Safer too, yes but mostly criminals don't think that way. Effort expended vs gain realized is mostly what they think about (not in those words I'm sure).AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.
Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence
Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)
Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
It's not easier to burglarize an empty house, just much, much safer.
Of course you don't shoot rusty guns, but I don't know what that has to do with your stance against Ak"s. Any non stainless steel gun can rust if you don't keep it well oiled.
And you totally missed the point on my statement about AKs.
So you're one of the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!" Nut bars.Are you kidding or is that a real (over) reaction?Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
STFU you commie shill! Fuck right the hell off with all that, k?
I'm serious as a heart attack. Stop attacking the 2nd Amendment, you tard.
Let's not and say we didn't, ok? Those ideas are all kinds of full of fail. Bad ideas, bro.
/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.
Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.
Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.Because the leftist call for more gun control will have no effect on crime or gun deaths why call for more gun control unless it's the goal to take guns from private citizens?See that, OP? Three posts in a row have called out your strawman. In fact the only post that did not, already self-identified as "not a Liberal".
Also you might want to look up the definition of the word tenure.
I'm uh, pretty sure the thread is about Liberals, not "leftiists".
Go ahead, check me on that. I'm just not seeing anything about "leftists".
So you're one of the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!" Nut bars.Are you kidding or is that a real (over) reaction?Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
STFU you commie shill! Fuck right the hell off with all that, k?
I'm serious as a heart attack. Stop attacking the 2nd Amendment, you tard.
Let's not and say we didn't, ok? Those ideas are all kinds of full of fail. Bad ideas, bro.
No use discussing with you then.
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.
Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.Because the leftist call for more gun control will have no effect on crime or gun deaths why call for more gun control unless it's the goal to take guns from private citizens?See that, OP? Three posts in a row have called out your strawman. In fact the only post that did not, already self-identified as "not a Liberal".
Also you might want to look up the definition of the word tenure.
I'm uh, pretty sure the thread is about Liberals, not "leftiists".
Go ahead, check me on that. I'm just not seeing anything about "leftists".
The OP didn't really mean liberals, he meant "leftiists", k? Surely you can realize that, no?
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.
Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.Because the leftist call for more gun control will have no effect on crime or gun deaths why call for more gun control unless it's the goal to take guns from private citizens?See that, OP? Three posts in a row have called out your strawman. In fact the only post that did not, already self-identified as "not a Liberal".
Also you might want to look up the definition of the word tenure.
I'm uh, pretty sure the thread is about Liberals, not "leftiists".
Go ahead, check me on that. I'm just not seeing anything about "leftists".
The OP didn't really mean liberals, he meant "leftiists", k? Surely you can realize that, no?
Then perhaps he should have WRITTEN "leftists", no?
"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.
Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.Because the leftist call for more gun control will have no effect on crime or gun deaths why call for more gun control unless it's the goal to take guns from private citizens?See that, OP? Three posts in a row have called out your strawman. In fact the only post that did not, already self-identified as "not a Liberal".
Also you might want to look up the definition of the word tenure.
I'm uh, pretty sure the thread is about Liberals, not "leftiists".
Go ahead, check me on that. I'm just not seeing anything about "leftists".
The OP didn't really mean liberals, he meant "leftiists", k? Surely you can realize that, no?
Then perhaps he should have WRITTEN "leftists", no?
Well yeah..
Some people don't understand the distinction like you and me do. Soon the TDS will turn you into a drooling zombie, and you won't understand anything, so let me get this in now. You were OK Pogo until the TDS took ya.
Actually criminals are scared of confrontation. That's why they orey on the weak, and the unoccupied home presents little.risk of confrontation. Your arguments do not hold water, and your "no guns here" strawman is just silly considering the liberals in the discussion have already said they have guns.Ummm no. The vast majority of of property crime is done while the owner isn't around because it's easier. Safer too, yes but mostly criminals don't think that way. Effort expended vs gain realized is mostly what they think about (not in those words I'm sure).AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.
If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.
So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?
The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.
Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.
It's not easier to burglarize an empty house, just much, much safer.
Of course you don't shoot rusty guns, but I don't know what that has to do with your stance against Ak"s. Any non stainless steel gun can rust if you don't keep it well oiled.
And you totally missed the point on my statement about AKs.
Well, it's like I tell all the anti-gunners around here. Get a huge sign made that says THIS HOUSE HAS NO FIREARMS and put that on your front porch. Get back us in a few months and let us know how it worked out for you........if you're still alive.
Criminals are not scared of confrontation, just equal or more powerful confrontation. It's why a majority of these mass shootings take place in gun free zones. They are assured nobody has a firearm but them. When they do break into occupied homes, it's usually very elderly people or people with disabilities.
leave police and criminals having guns
Opinion pieces are not facts.And still, numbers don't lie.That is such a fucking lie.I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.Your point=dipshit?
You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.
GTFO HERE
We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.
I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.
.
no they dont,,,
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
maybe its you and how you present your case thats the problem,,,You've just told a lie.When you start actually reading my posts instead of making shit up maybe someone here will take you seriously.None of the other rights can accidentally kill someone if mishandled or be used to kill a room full of Innocents in a matter of minutes. You can babble and whine about rights all day long but you cannot ignore fact that they come with responsibilities.I want you to replace any other right we have in place of gun ownership & see if you support that logic. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, not a privilege...
when you start calling for all cars to be banned we can take you seriously,,,
until then youre still a moron,,,
But I doubt it.
dont worry I read every word,,,,
