It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[Rigby5]

Huh?


Have you found:

T.V.

Radio

Film

Internet

Mentioned in the 1st amendment?


.

I am very sorry if that went over your head but you can't blame me for that. View attachment 279192

Over my head?

Think potsie think.

.

If you have something sensible to say, do it and stop trying to waste my time, Gracie.

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? Or just playing coy?

Which is it....


Once again you want to play a stupid game, so tell us where in the 1st amendment does it mention, radio, television, film or the internet?


.

You have wasted enough of my time with your silliness. If you don't knock it off I will have to assume you will never post anything of substance and put you on "blocked". Which do you prefer?

You are the one being silly.
The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the general population was armed with the latest weapons of war, so that an army of citizens soldiers could quickly be raised for defense, regardless of it the home, city, state, or country needed defense.
It does not state what specific weapons were to be protected, because the implication is that all weapons were always to be protected from any and all federal restrictions. The point of the 2nd amendment is a blanket ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over any weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

firearms cause over 60% of murders....we want to try to keep down murders, yes?
...humans will always murder....why allow them ''tools'' that make murder VERY easy?
..common sense tells you a ''tool'' designed to only kill and kill many very fast should be more regulated than a car

Saying "firearms cause over 60% or murders" proves you're not an intelligent, rational, mature adult.

Firearms cause nothing. Period.

Do you also think forks cause obesity? Bottles cause alcoholism? Ropes cause hangings?

Let's see if you really care about mass shootings....

We know many mass shooters want to be famous.

Would you support Trump banning news coverage of mass shootings?

Yes or no?

Guns don’t kill people....bullets do

No gun powder , a hammer and a projectile.. blame the Chinese.

No, blame the one with violent intent, because technology provides infinite means of killing.

 

[Rigby5]

you sound like the '''leftists''' [******] who argue with emotion and not common sense

Liberty is common sense.

The Bill of Rights is common sense.

Fascists trying to eliminate weapons that cause less than 1% of murders while ignoring inner city murders is an emotional response.

Keep digging

Now you got it!

To really impact our murder rate, you need to go after handguns which account for 2/3 of all gun deaths

But handguns are a sacred cow and can’t be touched. So we have to nibble at the edges and go after weapons that are used in mass shootings

Actually 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides

Not all gun deaths are murders

Dead is still dead

When life has become so intolerable that people want to commit suicide, then it is not going to make their life better by even more restrictions on them, like taking away their right to suicide.
Don't you understand there can be no more draconian and evil government than one that would try to dictate one's own choice of to live or die?

It would be one thing to claim a person contemplating suicide may just be temporarily over wrought, and needs therapy.
But that is not what you are suggesting, and instead are suggesting their torments be left alone, only their means of escape taken away. That is pure evil.

 

[edward37]

Sayit I'm NOT infringing on your right to keep and bear arms JUST the type of arms ,and just who can be trusted with that responsibility

So, you Nazis are NOT infringing on my right to free speech, JUST what I say and who can be trusted to convey the dogma of the party?

Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts content

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

 

[Rigby5]

So there's no need for further action by the government to strip citizens of their firearms.

Govt took actions limiting cigarettes banning smoking in workplaces and public spaces. Did a lot to reduce smoking

A clear example of a blind squirrel finding a berry. Once in a great while gov't actions make sense and are of real value to most Americans. I would guess that 80% of Americans concur that smoking in public buildings is not a good thing.

OTOH, while I can still smoke a cigar on my deck I cannot on the beach just beyond the bulkhead … a matter of 2 feet. There is no authority that gov't will not abuse and none that lefties would not cede to them.

Smoke on your deck
Your wife will not allow you to smoke in the house

Point is the whole point of the thread is totally wrong because the government never tried to confiscate tobacco products or make them illegal to buy or own, and there was never any licensing or registration required. People are pretty much free to smoke as they want, and only have to avoid annoying others. The reduction in tobacco products was totally voluntary.
Government had nothing at all to do with it.

The Government is not confiscating guns now

Background checks are not confiscation

The only purpose of background checks has to be to facilitate confiscations.
If not, they they could just issue everyone a card saying the were able to pass a background check.
There is no reason for them to know what type of weapon you are considering buying and from whom.
Which is what a current background check does.
It does not just establish that you are still qualified, but also the exact details of the proposed transaction, essentially creating a database of all purchases. And that is specifically illegal for the federal government to do.

 

[Auld Phart]

So, you Nazis are NOT infringing on my right to free speech, JUST what I say and who can be trusted to convey the dogma of the party?

Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts content

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

 

[Rigby5]

So, you Nazis are NOT infringing on my right to free speech, JUST what I say and who can be trusted to convey the dogma of the party?

Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts content

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

I think every household should have a submachinegun hanging over the mantle, just like people used to always have a weapon of war over the mantle.
We may not all be equal, but anyone not actually incarcerated, must be treated equally by government, or else government is more of a problem than the criminals we want them to protect us from.
You miss the point of equal rights if you think that means people have to actually be equal.
It is not actual equality we demand, but equal treatment under the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sayit I'm NOT infringing on your right to keep and bear arms JUST the type of arms ,and just who can be trusted with that responsibility

So, you Nazis are NOT infringing on my right to free speech, JUST what I say and who can be trusted to convey the dogma of the party?

Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts content

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You truly are dumb as a cat turd eddie, just not as pleasant to be around....

 

[Rigby5]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

It was done on Jews, it can be done on anti-Americans as well.

If it is allowed on anyone, then everyone is unsafe.
All must be made safe by preventing any government from suppressing any political beliefs, including anti American ones.

The rule of law is of vital substance to the prevention of authoritarian dictatorship.
And that means following the Constitution, which strictly prohibits any federal gun jurisdiction.
None at all can ever be allowed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts content

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

A Thompson M1921 runs about $80,000. Eddie is on Social Security from a minimum wage job. He might afford the STAMP, but never the weapon.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

A Thompson M1921 runs about $80,000. Eddie is on Social Security from a minimum wage job. He might afford the STAMP, but never the weapon.

eddie could pick up 10 of them, and not notice the cost.

 

[edward37]

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

A Thompson M1921 runs about $80,000. Eddie is on Social Security from a minimum wage job. He might afford the STAMP, but never the weapon.

eddie could pick up 10 of them, and not notice the cost.

Not quite Will I'd notice 800k

 

[edward37]

Sayit I'm NOT infringing on your right to keep and bear arms JUST the type of arms ,and just who can be trusted with that responsibility

So, you Nazis are NOT infringing on my right to free speech, JUST what I say and who can be trusted to convey the dogma of the party?

Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts content

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You truly are dumb as a cat turd eddie, just not as pleasant to be around....

I do have some friends Un But they're all bartenders

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

A Thompson M1921 runs about $80,000. Eddie is on Social Security from a minimum wage job. He might afford the STAMP, but never the weapon.

eddie could pick up 10 of them, and not notice the cost.

Not quite Will I'd notice 800k

You'd notice $8

 

[edward37]

Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts content

Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.

Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.

Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?

You don't see the analogy?
You said that restricting the type of weapons accessible was not an infringement on our rights.
So if you replace weapons with words, then you are saying that restricting the type of words one can use is not an infringement on our rights.
And that clearly illustrates how and why you are wrong.
It is VERY important that government NOT at all be allowed to be the one to dictate what weapons one is able to access.
The whole point is that all governments become corrupt over time, and become the enemy of everyone.
This is always going to be the case.
There is no way to prevent governments from becoming corrupt.
And the line in the sand is when government tries to start deciding who it wants to trust with arms.
That is because in a democratic republic, you MUST trust all those who are not locked up, equally.
The idea of picking and choosing those who government decides to not trust, is completely illegal by concept.
It is totally abhorrence.
Those too violent must be incarcerated, or else the claim they are too violent is just a lie.

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

I think every household should have a submachinegun hanging over the mantle, just like people used to always have a weapon of war over the mantle.
We may not all be equal, but anyone not actually incarcerated, must be treated equally by government, or else government is more of a problem than the criminals we want them to protect us from.
You miss the point of equal rights if you think that means people have to actually be equal.
It is not actual equality we demand, but equal treatment under the law.

Yes but so far it's very unequal

 

[edward37]

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me Will that be acceptable to you and the NRA? and for another point you made ,,,We are not all equal There are idiots morons racists among us

Great news I'm going to buy a sub machine gun tomorrow and I dare anyone to stop me

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

A Thompson M1921 runs about $80,000. Eddie is on Social Security from a minimum wage job. He might afford the STAMP, but never the weapon.

eddie could pick up 10 of them, and not notice the cost.

Not quite Will I'd notice 800k

You'd notice $8

Un that's what I lost on Friday Almost a sub machine gun

-$77,474.81 (-1.11%)
Day Change

 

[Auld Phart]

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

A Thompson M1921 runs about $80,000. Eddie is on Social Security from a minimum wage job. He might afford the STAMP, but never the weapon.

eddie could pick up 10 of them, and not notice the cost.

Not quite Will I'd notice 800k

You'd notice $8

Un that's what I lost on Friday Almost a sub machine gun

-$77,474.81 (-1.11%)
Day Change

Should have bought the gun

 

[hadit]

So there's no need for further action by the government to strip citizens of their firearms.

Govt took actions limiting cigarettes banning smoking in workplaces and public spaces. Did a lot to reduce smoking

A clear example of a blind squirrel finding a berry. Once in a great while gov't actions make sense and are of real value to most Americans. I would guess that 80% of Americans concur that smoking in public buildings is not a good thing.

OTOH, while I can still smoke a cigar on my deck I cannot on the beach just beyond the bulkhead … a matter of 2 feet. There is no authority that gov't will not abuse and none that lefties would not cede to them.

Smoke on your deck
Your wife will not allow you to smoke in the house

Point is the whole point of the thread is totally wrong because the government never tried to confiscate tobacco products or make them illegal to buy or own, and there was never any licensing or registration required. People are pretty much free to smoke as they want, and only have to avoid annoying others. The reduction in tobacco products was totally voluntary.
Government had nothing at all to do with it.

The Government is not confiscating guns now

Background checks are not confiscation

What is the ultimate goal, when it is proven that registration and licensing does nothing to reduce the number of deaths?

I will tell you. The same people will come out making the same arguments for confiscation, telling us that it's for our own good, and they just want to confiscate the black scary looking ones, and we're all stupid for thinking that they'll come for the others.

 

[edward37]

Govt took actions limiting cigarettes banning smoking in workplaces and public spaces. Did a lot to reduce smoking

A clear example of a blind squirrel finding a berry. Once in a great while gov't actions make sense and are of real value to most Americans. I would guess that 80% of Americans concur that smoking in public buildings is not a good thing.

OTOH, while I can still smoke a cigar on my deck I cannot on the beach just beyond the bulkhead … a matter of 2 feet. There is no authority that gov't will not abuse and none that lefties would not cede to them.

Smoke on your deck
Your wife will not allow you to smoke in the house

Point is the whole point of the thread is totally wrong because the government never tried to confiscate tobacco products or make them illegal to buy or own, and there was never any licensing or registration required. People are pretty much free to smoke as they want, and only have to avoid annoying others. The reduction in tobacco products was totally voluntary.
Government had nothing at all to do with it.

The Government is not confiscating guns now

Background checks are not confiscation

What is the ultimate goal, when it is proven that registration and licensing does nothing to reduce the number of deaths?

I will tell you. The same people will come out making the same arguments for confiscation, telling us that it's for our own good, and they just want to confiscate the black scary looking ones, and we're all stupid for thinking that they'll come for the others.

What has the leader of our country suggested to try and NOT eliminate, but reduce these mass killings? What was his great health care solution?? What has he done to help future generations as far as Climate change goes? Infrastructure?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, you can certainly afford it, but I doubt you'd pass all the red tape involved in purchasing and storing it.

If you do, have fun.

A Thompson M1921 runs about $80,000. Eddie is on Social Security from a minimum wage job. He might afford the STAMP, but never the weapon.

eddie could pick up 10 of them, and not notice the cost.

Not quite Will I'd notice 800k

You'd notice $8

Un that's what I lost on Friday Almost a sub machine gun

-$77,474.81 (-1.11%)
Day Change

Sure.

In 30 years I have yet to meet a Communist on the internet that isn't FABULOUSLY WEALTHY. All of your fellow leftists here are multi-trillionaires, just like you. Just ask them....