If we're to believe guns should be banned

[TNHarley]

a muslim commits a terrorist attack
Using bedwetter logic like OldLady that is enough to justify banning muslims. It only takes one.. RIGHT?

 

[hazlnut]

You have to get a BC on internet deals. EVERY DEALER must do background checks.
You realize their is a multi-billion dollar black market on weapons right? Those arent straw purchases. They are a multi-national crime ring.

CORRECTION -- EVERY FEDERALLY LIC. DEALER MUST DO BACKGROUND CHECKS.

All private owners and "collectors" can sell to any crazy asshole fuck they want...

Please know what you're talking about before posting….


Straw purchasers are the heart of the black market…. They are the point at which MOST guns go from legal ownership to illegal possession… as they straw purchasers who INTENDS to resell the gun to a criminal is no longer in LEGAL possession of the gun…

Without straw purchasers (people buying with the intent of reselling to criminals or buying for another person) the black market would dry up real fast...


Again, know your shit…

I've worked with the ATF, I could do this all day…

 

[OldLady]

Breathe.

 

[TNHarley]

You have to get a BC on internet deals. EVERY DEALER must do background checks.
You realize their is a multi-billion dollar black market on weapons right? Those arent straw purchases. They are a multi-national crime ring.

CORRECTION -- EVERY FEDERALLY LIC. DEALER MUST DO BACKGROUND CHECKS.

All private owners and "collectors" can sell to any crazy asshole fuck they want...

Please know what you're talking about before posting….


Straw purchasers are the heart of the black market…. They are the point at which MOST guns go from legal ownership to illegal possession… as they straw purchasers who INTENDS to resell the gun to a criminal is no longer in LEGAL possession of the gun…

Without straw purchasers (people buying with the intent of reselling to criminals or buying for another person) the black market would dry up real fast...


Again, know your shit…

I've worked with the ATF, I could do this all day…

private owners arent dealers you inbred rube

 

[jc456]

These incident are very unfortunate. But if anyone thinks for one second that any Individual should relinquish his or her own Individual rights in order to appease someone elses feelings, you're mistaken. And dilusional. Respectfully.

It isn't about "feelings." It is about common sense. I also have a right not to be mowed down in church, at Walmart, at school. That is not "feels."

you do not have a right. you live in a free society and that right isn't included. so try again.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'll tell you what you don't know OldLady

What it's like to handle a Luger your friend's dad brought home from the war and playing with the box of ammo. (semi-auto)

What it's like to handle Mausers that were war booty as well

What it's like to see a golden ashtray make from Jew fillings. (pretty morbid)

What it's like to shoot 7 rabbits before the sun comes up. (with your semi-auto rifle)

What it's like to take a deer, then gut it, skin it, and butcher it. (Not taken with a rifle, but whatevs)

Then feed it to your friend's family.

 

[TNHarley]

Breathe.

See? You are so dishonest.. Projection, to ignore your beat down.

 

[jc456]

What does "gun control" mean to democrats anyway? Do they even know or is it just a political cliche? Do democrats understand that you have to enforce to law to make it work? You can't talk about "banning guns" without talking about confiscation and the possibility of martial law.

You can see the results of strict gun laws by looking at Chicago. It's all a farce

here you go:

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporatedby the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Associationsponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendmentthus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendmen"

 

[hazlnut]

What if only the semiautomatic rifles got banned that spray dozens of bullets per minute, like the AR 556 Kelley used?

be honest now, what gun would you go/come after next?

That's a paranoid argument not based on reality. A very clever one by the NRA, but not valid.

They go after machine guns and now semi auto rifles. Please...
When someone kills a lot fo people with a hand gun, you bedwetters will go after them too. Its what you do.

The bedwetters are the scared little boys running around screaming "gun grab", "gun grab"… "they're coming for our dick guns, ma…"

REAL, Men hunt, follow the law and protect their communities by being responsible adults.

The majority of the extreme "guns forever for everyone" side are childless 20-somethings with no family or any real connection to society at large.

 

[jc456]

What does "gun control" mean to democrats anyway? Do they even know or is it just a political cliche? Do democrats understand that you have to enforce to law to make it work? You can't talk about "banning guns" without talking about confiscation and the possibility of martial law.

You can see the results of strict gun laws by looking at Chicago. It's all a farce

here you go:

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporatedby the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Associationsponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendmentthus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendmen"

so a man in a banned gun city felt threatened for he and his family. Why would that be if guns were banned? hly fk, can you see the problem here? the Supreme Court did.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

That's a paranoid argument not based on reality. A very clever one by the NRA, but not valid.

I wasn't making an argument, I was asking what you would want to ban next, if it were "nothing" that would have dismissed my question without an argument, and the "paranoid" response is typically liberal when the correct answer exposes the lefts true intentions, and the credit for the cleverness of the "paranoid" claim belongs to the ACLU from which I borrowed it in/from the 60's and 70's when they claimed any attempt to suppress any speech, no matter the content, no matter the classification was an assault on the first amendment and the constitution...perhaps we should revisit that claim based on its "cleverness"?

 

[hazlnut]

What does "gun control" mean to democrats anyway? Do they even know or is it just a political cliche? Do democrats understand that you have to enforce to law to make it work? You can't talk about "banning guns" without talking about confiscation and the possibility of martial law.

You can see the results of strict gun laws by looking at Chicago. It's all a farce

here you go:

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporatedby the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Associationsponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendmentthus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendmen"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia


Anton Scalia in the majority decision….

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[jc456]

What does "gun control" mean to democrats anyway? Do they even know or is it just a political cliche? Do democrats understand that you have to enforce to law to make it work? You can't talk about "banning guns" without talking about confiscation and the possibility of martial law.

You can see the results of strict gun laws by looking at Chicago. It's all a farce

here you go:

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporatedby the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Associationsponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendmentthus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendmen"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia


Anton Scalia in the majority decision….

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

dude the Heller case was part of the Chicago case you didn't even read it.

 

[hazlnut]

Why won't you give up a semi if it saves a bunch of innocent lives?

Because I've had it since I was 11 and it never took any "innocent lives". It has, however, provided meals for many a person.

People in the US should be allowed to have more arms than what they legally can, actually.

Do you understand that the goal of the 2nd Amendment was to put the people on an equal footing with possibly tyrannical government forces? OldLady

It's not our fault left and right politicians pushed to close sanitariums and Mental Health institutions and turned them out into the streets.

That was a big mistake. The other is outlawing corporal punishment.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Everything you've described can be accomplished without an AR-type gun. You don't own a shotgun, a deer rifle, a revolver? Any of those would do. I understand the sentimental attachment to your gun, though.

Skip the law and intent so your "feels" can still hold ground.
Well played

You have been dancing around and being as annoying as possible, but I haven't heard you just come out and say WHY an AR has to be a part of your arsenal. Just because it can? That's no answer. Limiting machine guns made sense because they were too deadly. Well so are semi's, as too many folks have been proving lately. Since they aren't necessary to ANY of the reasons you want guns, WHY must you insist on having them?
Don't argue or give me more bullshit. Just answer me plain and simple.

Because fuck you, that's why. you're not taking my Model 60 that I've had since I was a kid. That's why, personally.

I paid for it with lawn money and rode my bike home with it.

Speaking for others, they don't want to give up their guns just because some miscreant did something horrible.

If I was to purchase an AR, I should have the right to, without background checks or any of that crap. I'm from America, baby!

Sorry, you don't have that right… if you don't like it, get the fuck out.

 

[hazlnut]

What does "gun control" mean to democrats anyway? Do they even know or is it just a political cliche? Do democrats understand that you have to enforce to law to make it work? You can't talk about "banning guns" without talking about confiscation and the possibility of martial law.

You can see the results of strict gun laws by looking at Chicago. It's all a farce

here you go:

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporatedby the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Associationsponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendmentthus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendmen"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia


Anton Scalia in the majority decision….

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

dude the Heller case was part of the Chicago case you didn't even read it.

I was pointing out the part of Heller the dummies screaming "shall not infringe" never read.

Guess what, all rights have limits.

If they don't like it, leave.

 

[OldLady]

It's been awhile since I got a good beating in a gun thread.
Call me names and answer me with "BECAUSE, YOU DUMB BITCH" and figure you're all some smaht.

Gotta go.

 

[jc456]

What if only the semiautomatic rifles got banned that spray dozens of bullets per minute, like the AR 556 Kelley used?

be honest now, what gun would you go/come after next?

That's a paranoid argument not based on reality. A very clever one by the NRA, but not valid.

They go after machine guns and now semi auto rifles. Please...
When someone kills a lot fo people with a hand gun, you bedwetters will go after them too. Its what you do.

The bedwetters are the scared little boys running around screaming "gun grab", "gun grab"… "they're coming for our dick guns, ma…"

REAL, Men hunt, follow the law and protect their communities by being responsible adults.

The majority of the extreme "guns forever for everyone" side are childless 20-somethings with no family or any real connection to society at large.

what in the hell are you trying to say here? seems you picked up a hand full of poop and smeared it all over the place.

 

[jc456]

What does "gun control" mean to democrats anyway? Do they even know or is it just a political cliche? Do democrats understand that you have to enforce to law to make it work? You can't talk about "banning guns" without talking about confiscation and the possibility of martial law.

You can see the results of strict gun laws by looking at Chicago. It's all a farce

here you go:

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporatedby the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Associationsponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendmentthus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendmen"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia


Anton Scalia in the majority decision….

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

dude the Heller case was part of the Chicago case you didn't even read it.

I was pointing out the part of Heller the dummies screaming "shall not infringe" never read.

Guess what, all rights have limits.

If they don't like it, leave.

no one ever said they didn't. you mis read that.

 

[jc456]

It's been awhile since I got a good beating in a gun thread.
Call me names and answer me with "BECAUSE, YOU DUMB BITCH" and figure you're all some smaht.

Gotta go.

you always gotta go when the going gets tough. funny

 

[westwall]

Which won't happen in the foreseeable future, doesn't it make sense to ban gun violence from entertainment, from games to music to TV and some media?

To me its a logical flow. Take the latest Church slaughter, wholly shit BTW, what a freak. Our govt. let us down on this one. Anyway, worse things than rifles can be used, and they'd be as or more effective, agree? It's just that guns are most convenient, and to a freak, they're probably the most "fun" too. After all, they've seen it on TV, read about the affects 24/7, and games are probably worse.

On a side, imagine if guns were banned. The culprit could obtain one illegally, and cool cat NRA instructor wouldn't have been able to fire a cap in his ass.

What if only the semiautomatic rifles got banned that spray dozens of bullets per minute, like the AR 556 Kelley used?
You're right--a lot of the violence in entertainment is way over the top and it should be censored. Kids' cartoons have gotten so sacharine sweet I can't bear to watch them for five minutes yet Grand Theft Auto was one of the most popular video games out there for awhile. I don't even go to the movies anymore, but guns and violence are dripping from everything--including prime time tv. So yeah. It doesn't have to be too sweet to swallow, but a little taste and a lot less mass media mayhem wouldn't hurt anything.

France banned them and bad guys killed over 130 people with illegal weapons. Guess what, gun bans don't work.