"Gun nuts": people who think taking away citizens' guns will somehow reduce crimes by lawbreakers

[Little-Acorn]

So, who are the real "gun nuts"?

People who think that letting all law-abiding adults carry a gun (even if most people still don't bother carrying) is a way to deter crimes and mass shootings, better than anything else that has been tried so far?

Or people who still think that govt making laws against law-abiding people, will have an effect on criminals who don't obey laws? Despite the clear record of criminals seeking out the liberals' "gun free zones" as the best place to commit their crimes, knowing they will be in no danger from the disarmed patrons?

 

[koshergrl]

I've noticed that the usual liberal fanatics have been using their thread titles to insult normal people

Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's ironic is that the pejoratives they use to try to denigrate others, apply far more appropriately to themselves. But they'll probably never get it.

A "gun nut" is someone who thinks silly and ridiculous things about guns, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Many people think that letting all law-abiding adults carry a gun will make criminals think twice about committing their crimes, even if most people don't bother carrying. Those people aren't "nuts". They are simply right.

But a few people feel that governments making more and more laws restricting law-abiding people, will somehow discourage the lawbreakers, muggers, and murderers whose victims are disarmed. Those people are demonstrably "nuts". How many times have we seen criminals, mass murderers etc. deliberately go into the liberals' "gun free zones" to steal things, assault people, and even commit mass murders, knowing they will have plenty of time to commit their crimes and rack up huge body counts before the police finally show up?

The term "gun nuts" usually DOES apply when the liberal fanatics use it. But it doesn't apply to the normal people who oppose govt regulation of guns. It applies to the liberal fanatics themselves, who hold such kooky and long-disproven opinions on the ability of govt to discourage lawbreakers by making more laws. Even laws that have already failed.

Now those people are "nuts". About guns.

Confiscating guns from terrorists in a country where bearing arms is not a constitutional right is a false analogy to ANYTHING that could happen in this country.

Do you therefore disagree with the French police making hundreds of raids and confiscating hundreds of guns after the Paris attack?

Do you disagree with the French policies of gun rights?

I could give two shits about French gun policies.

 

[Auld Phart]

I've noticed that the usual liberal fanatics have been using their thread titles to insult normal people

Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's ironic is that the pejoratives they use to try to denigrate others, apply far more appropriately to themselves. But they'll probably never get it.

A "gun nut" is someone who thinks silly and ridiculous things about guns, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Many people think that letting all law-abiding adults carry a gun will make criminals think twice about committing their crimes, even if most people don't bother carrying. Those people aren't "nuts". They are simply right.

But a few people feel that governments making more and more laws restricting law-abiding people, will somehow discourage the lawbreakers, muggers, and murderers whose victims are disarmed. Those people are demonstrably "nuts". How many times have we seen criminals, mass murderers etc. deliberately go into the liberals' "gun free zones" to steal things, assault people, and even commit mass murders, knowing they will have plenty of time to commit their crimes and rack up huge body counts before the police finally show up?

The term "gun nuts" usually DOES apply when the liberal fanatics use it. But it doesn't apply to the normal people who oppose govt regulation of guns. It applies to the liberal fanatics themselves, who hold such kooky and long-disproven opinions on the ability of govt to discourage lawbreakers by making more laws. Even laws that have already failed.

Now those people are "nuts". About guns.

Confiscating guns from terrorists in a country where bearing arms is not a constitutional right is a false analogy to ANYTHING that could happen in this country.

Do you therefore disagree with the French police making hundreds of raids and confiscating hundreds of guns after the Paris attack?

Do you disagree with the French policies of gun rights?

I could give two shits about French gun policies.

I could give two shits about French gun policies

Well, I care.

I'd like to know how long it took them to get rid of their 2nd amendment, and the rights it granted

 

[Little-Acorn]

Do you disagree with the French policies of gun rights?

I could give two shits about French gun policies.

Please don't feed the trolls. He was trying to change the subject and prevent discussion of the thread's main point.

 

[koshergrl]

I've noticed that the usual liberal fanatics have been using their thread titles to insult normal people

Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's ironic is that the pejoratives they use to try to denigrate others, apply far more appropriately to themselves. But they'll probably never get it.

A "gun nut" is someone who thinks silly and ridiculous things about guns, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Many people think that letting all law-abiding adults carry a gun will make criminals think twice about committing their crimes, even if most people don't bother carrying. Those people aren't "nuts". They are simply right.

But a few people feel that governments making more and more laws restricting law-abiding people, will somehow discourage the lawbreakers, muggers, and murderers whose victims are disarmed. Those people are demonstrably "nuts". How many times have we seen criminals, mass murderers etc. deliberately go into the liberals' "gun free zones" to steal things, assault people, and even commit mass murders, knowing they will have plenty of time to commit their crimes and rack up huge body counts before the police finally show up?

The term "gun nuts" usually DOES apply when the liberal fanatics use it. But it doesn't apply to the normal people who oppose govt regulation of guns. It applies to the liberal fanatics themselves, who hold such kooky and long-disproven opinions on the ability of govt to discourage lawbreakers by making more laws. Even laws that have already failed.

Now those people are "nuts". About guns.

Confiscating guns from terrorists in a country where bearing arms is not a constitutional right is a false analogy to ANYTHING that could happen in this country.

Do you therefore disagree with the French police making hundreds of raids and confiscating hundreds of guns after the Paris attack?

Do you disagree with the French policies of gun rights?

I could give two shits about French gun policies.

I could give two shits about French gun policies

Well, I care.

I'd like to know how long it took them to get rid of their 2nd amendment, and the rights it granted

I don't think they actually have a constitution..do they??? Maybe they do.

I dunno. I don't care, lol.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Well, I care.

I'd like to know how long it took them to get rid of their 2nd amendment, and the rights it granted

To my knowledge they never had one.

Hitler greatly appreciated that, when he walked in practically unopposed in 1940.

How many "gun nuts" thought they were doing the French a favor by eliminating most civilian ownership of guns?

And how many British and American live were lost to give the French back their country in 1944-1945, that the French hadn't defended when they could have?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I don't think they actually have a constitution..do they??? Maybe they do.

I dunno. I don't care, lol.

Constitution of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[koshergrl]

I don't think they actually have a constitution..do they??? Maybe they do.

I dunno. I don't care, lol.

Constitution of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I don't care, lol.

They tried to improve upon our model, but they failed.

 

[Theowl32]

Kurt Russell Pushes Back Against Anti-Gun Hollywood Interviewer: Whaddaya Gonna Do? Ban Everything?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Kurt Russell Pushes Back Against Anti-Gun Hollywood Interviewer: Whaddaya Gonna Do? Ban Everything?[/QUOTE]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them.)

 

[Theowl32]

Kurt Russell Pushes Back Against Anti-Gun Hollywood Interviewer: Whaddaya Gonna Do? Ban Everything?[/QUOTE]

Liberals have shown that the gun laws they have implemented so far, don't work. In fact, murderers and terrorists have sought out the liberals' "gun free zones" as good places to kill people, since none of their victims can shoot back.

There are only two methods that have successfully reduced (never eliminated) the mass shootings:

1.) Allow all law-abiding adults to carry guns if they want to. Though most still won't bother, a few will, and the criminal contemplating his next mass shooting will know that there's probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. So they'll never be able to rack up the huge body count they want. And some of them will decide not to even try.

2.) Ban all guns from all citizens, including the law-abiding. And build up a huge police force to go door to door, searching every house whether the owner likes it or not, confiscating every gun you find, to make sure ALL guns are gone. That way no criminals can get them either. And keep doing searches and seizures until the end of time, in case someone brings a gun in or even makes one. This will result in a massive police state.

Do you think liberals favor Method #1? Or Method #2?

(hint: they still keep proposing more laws that restrict the law-abiding, instead of freeing them.)

They use "public safety" and all of the other touchy feely words to seduce the morons like Starkey.

It is never about that. They are committed socialists, and that is just a polite word for a new caste system.

 

[couch protester]

I've noticed that the usual liberal fanatics have been using their thread titles to insult normal people

Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's ironic is that the pejoratives they use to try to denigrate others, apply far more appropriately to themselves. But they'll probably never get it.

A "gun nut" is someone who thinks silly and ridiculous things about guns, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Many people think that letting all law-abiding adults carry a gun will make criminals think twice about committing their crimes, even if most people don't bother carrying. Those people aren't "nuts". They are simply right.

But a few people feel that governments making more and more laws restricting law-abiding people, will somehow discourage the lawbreakers, muggers, and murderers whose victims are disarmed. Those people are demonstrably "nuts". How many times have we seen criminals, mass murderers etc. deliberately go into the liberals' "gun free zones" to steal things, assault people, and even commit mass murders, knowing they will have plenty of time to commit their crimes and rack up huge body counts before the police finally show up?

The term "gun nuts" usually DOES apply when the liberal fanatics use it. But it doesn't apply to the normal people who oppose govt regulation of guns. It applies to the liberal fanatics themselves, who hold such kooky and long-disproven opinions on the ability of govt to discourage lawbreakers by making more laws. Even laws that have already failed.

Now those people are "nuts". About guns.

There are more cars than guns. There are more drunk drivers than guns unconcealed. There are more car crashes than legal gun carriers waving guns in public. There are more road rage drivers that could run over people to use cars as weapons than legal gun carriers using weapons to take it out on people. Do you distrust people being irresponsible with driving while you know there is road rage killings and leave your car immediately or don't walk in public where cars drive, knowing people drive crazy?

 

[Little-Acorn]

What's wrong with kids learning proper gun handling and safety?

It doesn't reflect on the 2nd amendment. It's simply a good idea.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'"Gun nuts": people who think taking away citizens' guns will somehow reduce crimes by lawbreakers'

Straw man fallacy, another lie from the right.

No one advocates "taking guns" from anyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gun nuts are people who think that there need to be loopholes in background check laws so that the ineligible can get their guns in a legal transaction.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Gun nuts are people who think that there need to be background check laws so that the eligible have to accept government oversight and control for them to get their guns in a legal transaction.

 

[Little-Acorn]

'"Gun nuts": people who think taking away citizens' guns will somehow reduce crimes by lawbreakers'

Straw man fallacy, another lie from the right.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what the OP said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names instead and vaguely accuse him of lying, even though I can cite no evidence.

No one advocates "taking guns" from anyone.

Except for left-wing elected officials (and forum liberal gun nuts) who have been quoted extensively.

 

[ding]

'"Gun nuts": people who think taking away citizens' guns will somehow reduce crimes by lawbreakers'

Straw man fallacy, another lie from the right.

No one advocates "taking guns" from anyone.

It is the logical conclusion to your emotional reaction to gun violence and gun accidents.

 

[ding]

Gun nuts are people who think that there need to be loopholes in background check laws so that the ineligible can get their guns in a legal transaction.

Gun nuts are the people who DON'T believe the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect us from a standing army of a tyrannical government.

Gun nuts are the people who DON'T want the whole body of the people to possess and own semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

Gun nuts are the people who want the police and army to be the only one's to have semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

Gun nuts are the people who have no clue that the 2nd Amendment intended for the whole body of the people to have access to the technology of the day that a light infantry ought to possess to serve as a check a standing army and as a deterrent for a tyrannical government forming in the first place.

 

[ding]

Gun nuts are people who think that there need to be loopholes in background check laws so that the ineligible can get their guns in a legal transaction.

Here's the thing... let's say we pass these laws and some idiot goes and shoots up a school. So you pass more laws. And some idiot still goes and shoots up a school. And so on and so on until the only thing left to do is ban and confiscate all guns. That is the logical conclusion of your motivation. There will always be some idiot shooting up something. So you can either make a knee jerk reaction and punish peaceable law abiding citizens or you can just accept the fact that gun violence and accidents are a cost of liberty and freedom.