Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Slade3200]

This is what this thread has displayed... Partisanship and paranoia are at a high. Most arguments and objections to gun regulations steam from a fear that guns will be banned or confiscated due to what has happened in some other countries throughout history. While I think there is some merit to that, this way of thinking has fostered an absolutist attitude objecting to anything put on the table and simply fuels divide and not progress.

I am an Independent that takes on each issue at face value not influenced by a particular party's stance. I wish we could just eliminate the party system but as it is I would love to find a good Conservative candidate to back, but there is nobody... I want small government and I was hoping to engage a good discussion about Gun Control that could show acceptance and acknowledgement of measures that make sense and discus good proactive points like allocation of funds, efficiency with program execution, and law making procedure. Some of you touched on these topics but the vast majority of arguments were off topic, reactionary, inflammatory and without much substance. It is a shame as it pushed me into a corner being labeled as a Liberal Demo Asshat... I am a gun owner that believes in individual freedom, opportunity and small government but the party that is supposed to represent that is falling apart because they fail to effectively communicate and refuse any compromise.

Instead of block, reject, block, reject... how about improve, evolve, improve, evolve... Deal with reality and not an over exaggerated paranoid fantasy.

If you hardbase right wingers can't see that you are now the minority and it is because of the hot air rederic and uncompromising attitude that many of you and your representatives spout out... Then you are going to further push the independents and liberals further to the left and further isolate yourselves. I hope for something to happen to bring you back to earth and help promote more productive discussions so we can find a good middle ground. The middle should rule this country not the extremists.... It's the right extremists that push that middle more and more to the left. Can you see that??

I appreciate all (well most of) your engagement, ideas, and opinions.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[westwall]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Probably the biggest problem is none of his schemes affect criminal behavior. They only affect the law abiding, who don't commit crimes anyway.

 

[Pogo]

Boy, 8, Accidentally Kills Self at Gun Show

Man Shot, Killed Outside Cedar Park Gun Show

Five Injured After Firearms Go Off In Ohio, NC, Indiana Gun Shows

Woman Shot at Gun Show in Bloomsburg

Pastor Shot Dead by Son-In-Law Outside Gun Show in Tragic Sunday Accident

---- What exactly does the word "ZERO" mean on your planet, Sparkles?

2013.... 320 million guns... 320 million guns in private hands....

Number of accidental gun deaths, total... 505.

So, which number is bigger and by how much?

and with all those guns....gun murder has gone down, not up.

Yyyyyyyeahu ummm.... way to miss the point by Epically ignorant proportions.

Check the post I just responded to. These things don't fall out of the sky -- they have what we call "context".

What did you think the reference to the word "ZERO" was about?

 

[Pogo]

where do you get those great photos from?

He got a printout of his colonoscopy.

That's uh, kind of the point of the previous post. And myriad others.

where do you get those great photos from?

Google "Silly gun control"

-- and then just grab whatever you see, even if it's completely made-up crap. And then watch your ass get reamed for not bothering to vet the info.

 

[Slade3200]

Probably the biggest problem is none of his schemes affect criminal behavior. They only affect the law abiding, who don't commit crimes anyway.

The two main arguments that I hear is "Obama's laws won't effect criminals" and "Obama is trying to take our guns away so don't support anything he wants to do" I just think both of those arguments are weak and have NOTHING to do with the actually policies presented.

There should be nothing wrong with doing a background check to make sure the person buying a gun is responsible and capable of using it safely... So why object to improving this process?

Registration also makes sense, we do it for our cars, why not our guns? You say, because its the next step to confiscation... The NRA has done a good job pumping this paranoid propaganda into your heads... We are not Germany, Britian or Australia and confiscation is not even on the table... In fact registration and tracking isn't even on the table... But if it was it would help trace ownership, solve crimes, source areas where illegal purchases occur etc... None of these steps can even hit the table because so many refuse to have a rational objective discussion about the matter. Progress is stalled and little gets done to help the problem. Sound familiar (Washington)... It really is a shame.

 

[Pogo]

I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:

Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?

Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.

Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.

Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.

Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.

What goes over my head is how you and so many others can just characterize something as Democratic or Liberal then completely dismiss it. It is that kind of partisanship that is ruining our country. You accuse me of looking at what's in front of me like that's a bad thing. Perhaps we should all just simply look at the laws and proposals that are put in front of us in an objective way and play to the party.

I get the distinct impression they think of all this as nothing more than a football game, where "our" team scores points against "their" team. I take it that's because they just don't have the intellect for actual politics.



It's what makes this place and others like it a black hole of discourse.

 

[Slade3200]

I get the distinct impression they think of all this as nothing more than a football game, where "our" team scores points against "their" team. I take it that's because they just don't have the intellect for actual politics.



It's what makes this place and others like it a black hole of discourse.

The problem for the Right is the Left has become the defending Superbowl champs and the Right has degraded to nothing better than a "JV Squad"... They should have fun with that one ;-)

 

[Pogo]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

You're an asshole is what you are.
Someone who says "Im a gun owner. I'm pro 2A. But my gun isnt the problem. It's that guy's gun over there. You need to ban that." is an anti gunner and an asshole.
Obama's EOs will do next to nothing.
There are no measures that will make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, unless we ban burglary, theft, and being a felon in possession of a gun.

Next to nothing is something so what's the harm in taking a small step? And why do you bring up banning guns again??? NOBODY IS SAYING BAN OR CONFISCATE!!!

Can't we just deal with that if its brought to the table... which it isn't!!!

This is the problem with small steps….we know the history of gun confiscation…it always starts with small steps…meant to protect people from guns…….and ends in confiscation….

And after each step fails to reduce the gun crime the way it was said it would…then comes the next "small" step……and when that doesn't work…the next "small" step…….

Firearms policy in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars.

The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to illegally shoot game using a firearm.

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.

Pistols Act 1903[edit]

The Pistols Act 1903 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms.

Titled "An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms", it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols.

It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) in length and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence, were exempt from the Gun Licence Act, could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property, or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector's rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more.

The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol commercially merely had to purchase a licence on demand over the counter from a Post Office before doing so. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms.


Does this sound familiar to anyone…….


The legislators laid some emphasis on the dangers of pistols in the hands of children and drunkards and made specific provisions regarding sales to these two groups: persons under 18 could be fined 40 shillings if they bought, hired, or carried a pistol, while anyone who sold a pistol to such a person could be fined £5.


Anyone who sold a pistol to someone who was "intoxicated or of unsound mind" was liable to a fine of £25 or 3 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

However, it was not an offence under the Act to give or lend a pistol to anyone belonging to these two groups.[64]

Not sure if you're aware of this but ---- restating a Slippery Slope fallacy over and over and over and over and over and over and over ---- doesn't make it any less a Slippery Slope fallacy.

 

[Pogo]

Oh good. Another day, another completely made-up bogus quote.

>> As a proud defender of our founding fathers (putting slavery to the side in the context of its times - it was still wrong), I rise again to respond to the latest false meme sighted (or falsely cited) on Facebook. George Washington did not say:

When any nation mistrusts its citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because it has evil plans.​

Nope. Nada. Nothing of the sort. It doesn't even sound like him. It certainly doesn't sound like the President George Washington who federalized militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. It's nowhere to be found in any official source from George himself! Check out a few:

Documents | Papers of George Washington

George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress

The Papers of George Washington Digital Edition

Geez Louise, People! If you have to rely on such false and misleading statements, offending the memory of our founders and the principles they did give us, maybe, just maybe, you should rethink what you are trying to defend - or attack. Just sayin'! <<​

The word [it's] gave it away immediately. You actually think George Washington didn't know the difference between its and it's? That's a flaming red flag. "When any nation mistrusts it is citizens"? Really?

What exactly does it say about your position that you have to make up bogus shit in an attempt to legitimize it? How many times have I busted you on this shit now?

"It is common on the Internet to falsely attribute to someone in the past a quotation addressing something that's an issue today but not an issue at that time." -- Aristotle

"Anyone who believes everything they find in Googly Images is credible is a fucking idiot" -- Mother Theresa

 

[g5000]

A lot of evidence that rubes have the intellectual bandwidth of a bumper sticker in this topic. They think brainlessly posting some propaganda outlet's cartoons is an argument.

About this Switzerland meme:

The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted.

Gun politics in Switzerland

So the cartoon would be more accurate if it said, "Switzerland is a bullet-free zone. Lowest crime rate in the world."

 

[Pogo]

This is what this thread has displayed... Partisanship and paranoia are at a high. Most arguments and objections to gun regulations steam from a fear that guns will be banned or confiscated due to what has happened in some other countries throughout history. While I think there is some merit to that, this way of thinking has fostered an absolutist attitude objecting to anything put on the table and simply fuels divide and not progress.

I am an Independent that takes on each issue at face value not influenced by a particular party's stance. I wish we could just eliminate the party system but as it is I would love to find a good Conservative candidate to back, but there is nobody... I want small government and I was hoping to engage a good discussion about Gun Control that could show acceptance and acknowledgement of measures that make sense and discus good proactive points like allocation of funds, efficiency with program execution, and law making procedure. Some of you touched on these topics but the vast majority of arguments were off topic, reactionary, inflammatory and without much substance. It is a shame as it pushed me into a corner being labeled as a Liberal Demo Asshat... I am a gun owner that believes in individual freedom, opportunity and small government but the party that is supposed to represent that is falling apart because they fail to effectively communicate and refuse any compromise.

Instead of block, reject, block, reject... how about improve, evolve, improve, evolve... Deal with reality and not an over exaggerated paranoid fantasy.

If you hardbase right wingers can't see that you are now the minority and it is because of the hot air rederic and uncompromising attitude that many of you and your representatives spout out... Then you are going to further push the independents and liberals further to the left and further isolate yourselves. I hope for something to happen to bring you back to earth and help promote more productive discussions so we can find a good middle ground. The middle should rule this country not the extremists.... It's the right extremists that push that middle more and more to the left. Can you see that??

I appreciate all (well most of) your engagement, ideas, and opinions.

Well spake, I agree. As noted earlier, it's all emotional rant based on a physical fetish. Therein lies the problem.

Personally I don't much care what law is passed or not passed; I think throwing legislation at the problem is meaningless symbolism. The issue lies in our culture, the fetishism itself -- the moral values that dictate it's OK, even "cool", to shoot things. That's where change needs to happen. Frankly all this political bloviating is just that, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing and changing nothing.

I agree about the political parties as well. All they do is generate blind partisanship, as is readily evident here, but on sadly most other issues as well.

 

[Pogo]

Registration also makes sense, we do it for our cars, why not our guns? You say, because its the next step to confiscation...

As pointed out earlier in another thread (or maybe it was this one near the beginning?) --- that analogy is easily disproven: Cars have been registered for over a hundred years, and the car population hasn't exactly dwindled in that time. Meanwhile the law makes at least an attempt to curb (pun intended) car use by the irresponsible in the interest of public safety. It's no different here.

As also pointed out at that time, the fact that car-owning is not a right is irrelevant; in fact it makes the argument stronger, since the government, if it desired, could Constitutionally ban cars, and yet after over a century of registration which according to the specious argument "inevitably" leads to banning --- it hasn't.

So much for specious argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

Probably the biggest problem is none of his schemes affect criminal behavior. They only affect the law abiding, who don't commit crimes anyway.

The two main arguments that I hear is "Obama's laws won't effect criminals" and "Obama is trying to take our guns away so don't support anything he wants to do" I just think both of those arguments are weak and have NOTHING to do with the actually policies presented.

There should be nothing wrong with doing a background check to make sure the person buying a gun is responsible and capable of using it safely... So why object to improving this process?

Registration also makes sense, we do it for our cars, why not our guns? You say, because its the next step to confiscation... The NRA has done a good job pumping this paranoid propaganda into your heads... We are not Germany, Britian or Australia and confiscation is not even on the table... In fact registration and tracking isn't even on the table... But if it was it would help trace ownership, solve crimes, source areas where illegal purchases occur etc... None of these steps can even hit the table because so many refuse to have a rational objective discussion about the matter. Progress is stalled and little gets done to help the problem. Sound familiar (Washington)... It really is a shame.

You've missed it.
The precise point is that none of the policies proposed would prevent criminals from getting guns. Most of the mass shooters in the last 8 years were lawful citizens who passed or could have passed background checks right up until they murdered people.
You cannot articulate how registering guns would prevent criminals from getting them.

 

[The Rabbi]

A lot of evidence that rubes have the intellectual bandwidth of a bumper sticker in this topic. They think brainlessly posting some propaganda outlet's cartoons is an argument.

About this Switzerland meme:

The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted.

Gun politics in Switzerland

So the cartoon would be more accurate if it said, "Switzerland is a bullet-free zone. Lowest crime rate in the world."

Do you actually read your own posts or do you sub them out to people even dumber than you?
The quotation involves ARMY ISSUED AMMO. But anyojne can buy any amount of ammo on their own and have it at home.
Another piss guzzling rube pwned by his own stupidity.

 

[westwall]

Probably the biggest problem is none of his schemes affect criminal behavior. They only affect the law abiding, who don't commit crimes anyway.

The two main arguments that I hear is "Obama's laws won't effect criminals" and "Obama is trying to take our guns away so don't support anything he wants to do" I just think both of those arguments are weak and have NOTHING to do with the actually policies presented.

There should be nothing wrong with doing a background check to make sure the person buying a gun is responsible and capable of using it safely... So why object to improving this process?

Registration also makes sense, we do it for our cars, why not our guns? You say, because its the next step to confiscation... The NRA has done a good job pumping this paranoid propaganda into your heads... We are not Germany, Britian or Australia and confiscation is not even on the table... In fact registration and tracking isn't even on the table... But if it was it would help trace ownership, solve crimes, source areas where illegal purchases occur etc... None of these steps can even hit the table because so many refuse to have a rational objective discussion about the matter. Progress is stalled and little gets done to help the problem. Sound familiar (Washington)... It really is a shame.

How does registration of guns affect criminal behavior? Criminals don't use guns that they purchased at legit gun shops anyway. they tend to use stolen guns so registration just tells you who they were stolen from. And they will have reported that anyway.

Registration has ALWAYS led to confiscation. There is a 100% correlation rate. No we are not Germany, or Russia, however, neither were they until they suddenly turned into the vile countries they became. And that change could not have occurred when the people were armed. That's why the authorities used the registration lists to confiscate the weapons from the people.

I actually support universal background checks. However, I only support checking the person and not being required to register the weapon at that time. Check yes, registration no.

I don't care that you register your car. The two are not the same. They are not even in the same dimension as far as individual Rights are concerned.

 

[westwall]

I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:

Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?

Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.

Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.

Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.

Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.

What goes over my head is how you and so many others can just characterize something as Democratic or Liberal then completely dismiss it. It is that kind of partisanship that is ruining our country. You accuse me of looking at what's in front of me like that's a bad thing. Perhaps we should all just simply look at the laws and proposals that are put in front of us in an objective way and play to the party.

I get the distinct impression they think of all this as nothing more than a football game, where "our" team scores points against "their" team. I take it that's because they just don't have the intellect for actual politics.



It's what makes this place and others like it a black hole of discourse.

You don't "discuss", you talk AT people and expect them to take it. We are smarter than you, and we are far better informed than you on the subject so you get all pissy and call people names.

 

[westwall]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

You're an asshole is what you are.
Someone who says "Im a gun owner. I'm pro 2A. But my gun isnt the problem. It's that guy's gun over there. You need to ban that." is an anti gunner and an asshole.
Obama's EOs will do next to nothing.
There are no measures that will make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, unless we ban burglary, theft, and being a felon in possession of a gun.

Next to nothing is something so what's the harm in taking a small step? And why do you bring up banning guns again??? NOBODY IS SAYING BAN OR CONFISCATE!!!

Can't we just deal with that if its brought to the table... which it isn't!!!

This is the problem with small steps….we know the history of gun confiscation…it always starts with small steps…meant to protect people from guns…….and ends in confiscation….

And after each step fails to reduce the gun crime the way it was said it would…then comes the next "small" step……and when that doesn't work…the next "small" step…….

Firearms policy in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars.

The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to illegally shoot game using a firearm.

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.

Pistols Act 1903[edit]

The Pistols Act 1903 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms.

Titled "An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms", it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols.

It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) in length and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence, were exempt from the Gun Licence Act, could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property, or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector's rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more.

The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol commercially merely had to purchase a licence on demand over the counter from a Post Office before doing so. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms.


Does this sound familiar to anyone…….


The legislators laid some emphasis on the dangers of pistols in the hands of children and drunkards and made specific provisions regarding sales to these two groups: persons under 18 could be fined 40 shillings if they bought, hired, or carried a pistol, while anyone who sold a pistol to such a person could be fined £5.


Anyone who sold a pistol to someone who was "intoxicated or of unsound mind" was liable to a fine of £25 or 3 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

However, it was not an offence under the Act to give or lend a pistol to anyone belonging to these two groups.[64]

Not sure if you're aware of this but ---- restating a Slippery Slope fallacy over and over and over and over and over and over and over ---- doesn't make it any less a Slippery Slope fallacy.

Please show us ONE country that adopted registration of weapons and then didn't follow up with confiscation. Just one. I can go all the way back to the Byzantine Empire and their registration of swords followed up by the confiscation and murder of 32,000 sword owners for my timeline.

You?

 

[Intolerant]

"I like my firearms, like Obama likes his voters"
"Undocumented"

 

[westwall]

A lot of evidence that rubes have the intellectual bandwidth of a bumper sticker in this topic. They think brainlessly posting some propaganda outlet's cartoons is an argument.

About this Switzerland meme:

The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted.

Gun politics in Switzerland

So the cartoon would be more accurate if it said, "Switzerland is a bullet-free zone. Lowest crime rate in the world."

I guess you missed the part of your link where it states "COMPATIBLE AMMUNITION PURCHASED FOR PRIVATE OWNED GUNS IS PERMITTED"

 

[Rustic]

Oh good. Another day, another completely made-up bogus quote.

>> As a proud defender of our founding fathers (putting slavery to the side in the context of its times - it was still wrong), I rise again to respond to the latest false meme sighted (or falsely cited) on Facebook. George Washington did not say:

When any nation mistrusts its citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because it has evil plans.​

Nope. Nada. Nothing of the sort. It doesn't even sound like him. It certainly doesn't sound like the President George Washington who federalized militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. It's nowhere to be found in any official source from George himself! Check out a few:

Documents | Papers of George Washington

George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress

The Papers of George Washington Digital Edition

Geez Louise, People! If you have to rely on such false and misleading statements, offending the memory of our founders and the principles they did give us, maybe, just maybe, you should rethink what you are trying to defend - or attack. Just sayin'! <<​

The word [it's] gave it away immediately. You actually think George Washington didn't know the difference between its and it's? That's a flaming red flag. "When any nation mistrusts it is citizens"? Really?

What exactly does it say about your position that you have to make up bogus shit in an attempt to legitimize it? How many times have I busted you on this shit now?

"It is common on the Internet to falsely attribute to someone in the past a quotation addressing something that's an issue today but not an issue at that time." -- Aristotle

"Anyone who believes everything they find in Googly Images is credible is a fucking idiot" -- Mother Theresa