Gun Control question for liberals?

[BULLDOG]

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.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

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.

There is no "TDS" present here.

Just essplain to the class why a blatant error like that should be left to stand. Just essplain why, if a bystander tells somebody that Gruntville is fifteen miles to the east, and you know for a fact that Gruntville is actually fifteen miiles to the west, you stand there, say nothing and let the guy get lost. What are you, stoopid?

LOL Your fake news manipulated signature speaks volumes of your level of TDS.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

criminals don't do background checks
How did that background check work for the mass shooting in Texas?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You missed the point which is the reason unarmed homes are safe is because they can be armed. Take that away, and the criminals know all homes are unarmed which gives them the upper hand because they will still have guns. Then you will see a huge escalation in occupied home robberies.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can fuck themselves,,,

 

[justinacolmena]

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.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I don't patronize car lots. I have only ever (personally) bought cars from a private party.

I tuned my car up myself to pass emissions, and that was the only "inspection" required for licensing in my state.

Signals & headlights, working gas cap, bumpers on the frame, hood latched down, all that stuff is incredibly basic.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
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?

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.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

It's not fantasy...

Williams: Second Amendment Exists to Protect Us From Government

You understand that link is to an opinion piece by Walter Williams, who is an economist, and has no special training or understanding of the constitution, other than parroting what he has heard from other right wing rhetoric sources, don't you?

 

[Crepitus]

I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.

That is such a fucking lie.

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.



.

And still, numbers don't lie.

no they dont,,,

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Opinion pieces are not facts.

but the info they use most of the time is fact,,,and in this case your argument fails,,,

Im afraid that's incorrect. Opinion pieces tend to to cherry pick or outright misrepresent facts, that's why they are published as opinion instead of facts or news. It's not exclusively a republican thing (although they do it more often) democrats have been guilty of it as well.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

when you start calling for all cars to be banned we can take you seriously,,,

until then youre still a moron,,,

When you start actually reading my posts instead of making shit up maybe someone here will take you seriously.


But I doubt it.

dont worry I read every word,,,,

You've just told a lie.

maybe its you and how you present your case thats the problem,,,

like when you said burglars preferred empty houses instead of saying they preferred houses where nobody is home,,,

Anyone else would have known what I meant. Your lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

criminals don't do background checks
How did that background check work for the mass shooting in Texas?

Such a stupid remark since there is no legal reason why they should.

 

[Crepitus]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

Of course it will. Straw purchasers will be limited once patterns are noted, as will purchasers who fail to secure weapons from thieves.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You missed the point which is the reason unarmed homes are safe is because they can be armed. Take that away, and the criminals know all homes are unarmed which gives them the upper hand because they will still have guns. Then you will see a huge escalation in occupied home robberies.

Not likely. Most burglars aren't even armed. Your premise is based on sheer paranoia.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

 

[Crepitus]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can fuck themselves,,,

Why would background checks violate your rights?

 

[BULLDOG]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I don't patronize car lots. I have only ever (personally) bought cars from a private party.

I tuned my car up myself to pass emissions, and that was the only "inspection" required for licensing in my state.

Signals & headlights, working gas cap, bumpers on the frame, hood latched down, all that stuff is incredibly basic.

It has nothing to do with whether it is basic. Somebody does check to see those things are done.

 

[Rustic]

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can fuck themselves,,,

Why would background checks violate your rights?

Lol
We already have background checks on all firearms purchased in retail, you fucking retard.

 

[Rustic]

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

Of course it will. Straw purchasers will be limited once patterns are noted, as will purchasers who fail to secure weapons from thieves.

Na, not really

 

[Rustic]

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

 

[progressive hunter]

That is such a fucking lie.

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.



.

And still, numbers don't lie.

no they dont,,,

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Opinion pieces are not facts.

but the info they use most of the time is fact,,,and in this case your argument fails,,,

Im afraid that's incorrect. Opinion pieces tend to to cherry pick or outright misrepresent facts, that's why they are published as opinion instead of facts or news. It's not exclusively a republican thing (although they do it more often) democrats have been guilty of it as well.

I know you are just going to attack the messenger again instead of addressing the message, but inside this article it give CDC stats that say at a min 500K lives are saved each yr by guns, and that number could go as high as 3 million,,,

now go ahead and attack the messenger again,,,


WAITING,,,