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.
Like I said guns don't kill people...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:
Gun politics in SwitzerlandThe 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.
So the cartoon would be more accurate if it said, "Switzerland is a bullet-free zone. Lowest crime rate in the world."
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: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?
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'! <<
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
Again you fight the invisible ghost... How about you argue against confiscation once it is proposed, which it isn't. We live in modern progressive times and so much weight of your arguments stem from either an era of revolution when the constitution was written or from actions of other countries that happened in the past. Why can't we just deal with the here and now?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?
Again you fight the invisible ghost... How about you argue against confiscation once it is proposed, which it isn't. We live in modern progressive times and so much weight of your arguments stem from either an era of revolution when the constitution was written or from actions of other countries that happened in the past. Why can't we just deal with the here and now?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?
This hidden agenda or the "slippery slope" as you call it, is pumped into your brains to scare you into blind opposition of EVERYTHING proposed and you fail to attempt to do or propose anything to help the problem. Not many solutions are not being proposed by pro-gunners in this forum so far... mostly just complaints and ridicule.
I appreciate the one guy that could admit that background checks are useful and should be supported and another early on in the thread who suggested that training and certification be used to allow license and carry permits. I guess 2 out of 200 posts is a start
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 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.
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.
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!!!You're an asshole is what you are.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
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.
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?
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: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?
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'! <<
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
Again you fight the invisible ghost... How about you argue against confiscation once it is proposed, which it isn't. We live in modern progressive times and so much weight of your arguments stem from either an era of revolution when the constitution was written or from actions of other countries that happened in the past. Why can't we just deal with the here and now?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?
This hidden agenda or the "slippery slope" as you call it, is pumped into your brains to scare you into blind opposition of EVERYTHING proposed and you fail to attempt to do or propose anything to help the problem. Not many solutions are not being proposed by pro-gunners in this forum so far... mostly just complaints and ridicule.
I appreciate the one guy that could admit that background checks are useful and should be supported and another early on in the thread who suggested that training and certification be used to allow license and carry permits. I guess 2 out of 200 posts is a start
Rustic... would you please stop littering the forum with your quote photos? The grown ups are trying to talk... Use your words
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!!!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.
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?
I've never looked into that and frankly, don't give a shit.
The point stands: Slippery Slope fallacy is Slippery Slope fallacy is Slippery Slope fallacy. Doesn't matter one iota how many times you repeat the same thing in hope that somebody will believe it.
