How to make Gun Grabbers Cry:

[mmmjvpssm]

Federalist 46:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

I do not see how that can be interpreted to mean that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms. The only argument it would rebut is the one that says we should confiscate all guns and that's not what we're saying

 

[M14 Shooter]

Federalist 46:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

I do not see how that can be interpreted to mean that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms.

Who argues that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms?

 

[PaulS1950]

There are already over 2500 restrictive laws regarding guns. There are already laws against criminals having guns. It is already against the law from the criminally insane from getting, having or controlling guns. when a felon is caught with a gun (not having committed any other crimes) it is simply confiscated and no prosecution is made on the felony of "possession of a firearm". Why is it that we don't prosecute felons who have guns?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Federalist 46:

I do not see how that can be interpreted to mean that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms.

Who argues that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms?

Are you serious??? The NRA for one. And also a whole lot of their admirers. They don't put it that way of course, they'll say they don't think felons or the mentally insane should be able to buy guns. But then they also say there should be no background checks so when the felon or crazy person goes to buy a gun there are no questions asked

 

[mmmjvpssm]

There are already over 2500 restrictive laws regarding guns. There are already laws against criminals having guns. It is already against the law from the criminally insane from getting, having or controlling guns. when a felon is caught with a gun (not having committed any other crimes) it is simply confiscated and no prosecution is made on the felony of "possession of a firearm". Why is it that we don't prosecute felons who have guns?

And how many of those laws are we actually able to enforce in spite of the Republicans and the NRA. You do know the Republicans are constantly trying to weaken the ATF right? Also if there are no background checks what's stopping those criminals from having guns. And how many of those 2500 laws predate 1934? (or around there) Because in some states now those would be the only ones that apply

 

[M14 Shooter]

I do not see how that can be interpreted to mean that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms.

Who argues that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms?

Are you serious??? The NRA for one.

This is either a lie, or abject ignorance.
It is impossioble for you to find a statement from the NRA to the effect that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms.

But then they also say there should be no background checks so when the felon or crazy person goes to buy a gun there are no questions asked.

This is either a lie, or abject ignorance.
Aside from the fact that you cannot show any such statement from the NRA, you are clearly unaware of the fact that the current NICS system exists for no reason other than the NRA supported its creation; the NRA continually works to have it strengthened,

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Yeah ban all guns, it worked so well when alcohol was banned.

Nobody said we should ban all guns. But since you bring up alcohol, bad example. We have very extensive alcohol control

Well, lesse..

-You dont need a license to buy it, consume it or store it.
-You don't need to register the alcohol you buy.
-You don't need to wait to buy it while the state makes sure you aren't breaking the law.
-You don't need permssion from the state before you carry it down the street

Not sure how you think your compairson makes any sort of meaningful point.

Try buying it without an ID. If you do the clerk is probably breaking the law. Try having a few drinks and then going for a drive. Might work if you don't swerve too much. Try just having it opened in your car.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nobody said we should ban all guns. But since you bring up alcohol, bad example. We have very extensive alcohol control

Well, lesse..

-You dont need a license to buy it, consume it or store it.
-You don't need to register the alcohol you buy.
-You don't need to wait to buy it while the state makes sure you aren't breaking the law.
-You don't need permssion from the state before you carry it down the street

Not sure how you think your compairson makes any sort of meaningful point.

Try buying it without an ID.

Does having to show an ID to buy beer qualify as "extensive alcohol control"?
If so, we must then already have "extensive gun control" as the same thing applies to them.

 

[PaulS1950]

We shouldn't ban any guns that are in current use by the military infantry. If a soldier is carrying one we should have a right to legally own it. There are laws against murder - but it still happens. Why are those laws in place? They are in place so we can lawfully prosecute the offender.
Laws do not keep people safe - they make the criminals pay for breaking the law when they are caught. If we caught all the criminals and prosecuted them we wouldn't have violent crime at all - even with 300 miliion guns in the hands of free people.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I do not see how that can be interpreted to mean that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms.

Who argues that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms?

Are you serious??? The NRA for one. And also a whole lot of their admirers. They don't put it that way of course, they'll say they don't think felons or the mentally insane should be able to buy guns. But then they also say there should be no background checks so when the felon or crazy person goes to buy a gun there are no questions asked

No, that can only be called a baldfaced LIE!

 

[BallsBrunswick]

It's funny how conservatives have to come up with simple little phrases for their double digit IQ followers because anything beyond a simple title for a complex idea goes over their heads.

"Gun Grabber"
"Job Creator"
"Baby Killer"

etc.

 

[Cowman]

This SHOULD make a gun grabber cry.

911 Dispatcher Tells Woman About To Be Sexually Assaulted There Are No Cops To Help Her Due To Budget Cuts « CBS Seattle

“Once again it’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,” the dispatcher said, according to Oregon Public Radio.

The woman responded: “Yeah, it doesn’t matter, if he gets in the house I’m done.”

Police say Bellah choked the woman and sexually assaulted her. He was arrested by Oregon State Police following the incident.

“There isn’t a day that goes by that we don’t have another victim,”

Police budget cuts... that's a conservative enacted vision right there.

 

[Brain357]

OK. Armed guards, 24/7 in every school in the US. But that has to be paid for. So, given the source of the problem, let's figure out what that would cost, and arrange a tax on all the gun manufacturers, dealers, and gun show venues in the nation. Sounds fair to me.

There are a lot of unemployed veterans who would happily take this job for $50,000 a year. Maybe we could cut the $300,000 superintendent and other patronage job salaries to put 2 or 3 armed guards in each school? Maybe we could eliminate the double union pensions? Just a start!

It's better to prioritize your finances than to haphazardly increase them!

How about we bring back all our troops that are overseas and put them in schools for security? We are already paying them.

 

[JoeB131]

So frankly, if you gun nuts are really insistent on allowing crazy people and criminals to buy guns, you should pay a huge tax on ammo and guns.

You really think that disallowing criminals and crazies from buying guns will stop them from obtaining them? How is disallowing drugs going?

Um, yeah. Actually I suspect that if you allowed the gun manufacturers to be sued when one of their products mows down a school full of kids, you watch how fast the gun manufacturers start policing who owns their products.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Eventually all gun clinging morons will repent through hard labor.
Confiscation time has started so Mund halten, guns will soon be verboten & imposed upon the general population ...........check mate gun clingers.

 

[jgarden]

How to make Gun Grabbers Cry:

Windsor, Ontario is approximately 1900 feet across the river from Detroit - a city that thanks to "the right to bear arms," averages one homicide daily.

Unlike the US, Canada has strict handgun rules and Windsor recently went 27 months without a homicide.

Needless to say, there is no public demand in Windsor or the rest of Canada to relax their gun laws!

 

[M14 Shooter]

How to make Gun Grabbers Cry:

Windsor, Ontario is approximately 1900 feet across the river from Detroit - a city that thanks to "the right to bear arms," averages one homicide daily.

Unlike the US, Canada has strict handgun rules and Windsor recently went 27 months without a homicide.

I laugh -every- time I read this.

Compare and contrast the gun laws in Detroit to the gun laws in Canada.
Be sure to cite sources, and include the gun laws in the state of MI.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Um, yeah. Actually I suspect that if you allowed the gun manufacturers to be sued when one of their products mows down a school full of kids, you watch how fast the gun manufacturers start policing who owns their products.

1) You haven't addressed Federalist 46 yet, although I wouldn't expect someone who labels WWII veterans drunks and thugs for restoring the Ruleof Law in Athens, Tennessee in 1946.

2) So your solution is to punish someone for another person's crime? I guess we should ignore the Corruptuion of Blood Clause in Article III, Section 3 while we're it, I mean seriously, if you can do it once, what's to stop ou from applying that idea elsewhere? Can we sue Obama since his rogue IRS agents harassed and intimidatied Conseverative and Tea Party groups (for the record, I believe Obama honestly had no idea it was happening).

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Who argues that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own and operate firearms?

Are you serious??? The NRA for one. And also a whole lot of their admirers. They don't put it that way of course, they'll say they don't think felons or the mentally insane should be able to buy guns. But then they also say there should be no background checks so when the felon or crazy person goes to buy a gun there are no questions asked

No, that can only be called a baldfaced LIE!

It's a baldfaced lie that the NRA is against background checks. Yeah ok

 

[JoeB131]

Um, yeah. Actually I suspect that if you allowed the gun manufacturers to be sued when one of their products mows down a school full of kids, you watch how fast the gun manufacturers start policing who owns their products.

1) You haven't addressed Federalist 46 yet, although I wouldn't expect someone who labels WWII veterans drunks and thugs for restoring the Ruleof Law in Athens, Tennessee in 1946.

2) So your solution is to punish someone for another person's crime? I guess we should ignore the Corruptuion of Blood Clause in Article III, Section 3 while we're it, I mean seriously, if you can do it once, what's to stop ou from applying that idea elsewhere? Can we sue Obama since his rogue IRS agents harassed and intimidatied Conseverative and Tea Party groups (for the record, I believe Obama honestly had no idea it was happening).

1. FUck Federalist 46. It ain't part of the constitution, it doesn't count.

2. Sorry, there are laws against assaulting law officer and storming jails. If they had a problem with how that election was conducted, that's what we have courts for. Not a drunken rampage with guns.

3. We hold manufacturers responsible all the time for the irresponsible use of their products. Did you know they used to market Lysol as a douche? Until some people got injured doing it and they sued.

Point was, if the Gun Manufacturers paid a big settlement to the Sandy Hook Parents, you bet your ass they would make damns sure crazy people weren't buying their products.