No one is going to take your guns

[Jarlaxle]

But we already do.

We search luggage, we make people take off their shoes to get x-rayed, we have full body searches and pat-downs, we have "no Fly lists" which restrict who can get on an airplane, and just try getting on a plane with no problem if your name is "Mohammed".

All because of ONE incident 12 years ago.

But we have the equivlent to 10 9/11's every year, in terms of body count, and gun laws have actually gotten looser, not tighter.

and we have over 20,000 gun laws and purchasing constraints.

Which gun law has gotten looser ?

Well, to start with, we got rid of the Assault Weapon ban that even George W. Bush thought was a pretty good idea.

No, the AWB was broomed because it was STUPID and accomplished nothing. Neither you nor anyone else can define an "assault weapon" as anything other than "a mean-looking rifle".

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is what you guys don't seem to get. If you have a law to keep Joker Holmes from getting a gun, and he is able to walk into a gun store, Orange hair and all, doing his bad Heath Ledger impersonation, and they say, "Oh, hey, here's a semi-automatic rifle AND a 100 round drum magazine!"-

I am all for placing mental health records in the NCIS. Why do Dems block that ?

Not sure that they do, but there is something called HIPPA out there.

But the real problem is, Joker Holmes walking into a store, and even though EVERYONE in his life knew he was nutz, he was able to buy guns anyway.

But when you say gun ownership is a "right", that's kind of what you get.

Everyone knows you're nuts, and you could legally buy a gun. "Everyone knows he's nuts" is not a legal standard, dumbass!

 

[Jarlaxle]

I am all for placing mental health records in the NCIS. Why do Dems block that ?

You can have all the mental health records in NICS you want - unless the prospective gun buyer has been adjudicated metanlly unsound (or somesuch), NICS will not block the sale.

Why?

Because regardless of your mental health record, its not illegal to buy a gun unless you have been adjudicated metanlly unsound (or somesuch).

Then that's a screwed up law.

How about instead of having to have the government prove you are insane before you can have a death-machine, you have to prove you aren't.

You know, do something like a BACKGROUND Check.

You see, the thing about these mass shooters is that we always end up finding out how crazy they were after they got a gun.

This last one, the one who shot up the Navy Yard, shit, he was freakin' hearing voices in his head.

And he was able to get a gun.

Yes, bwana, that's how things work in a FREE country: unless and until you have had rights removed by due process, you have those rights! Civics 101, are you capable of understanding it, boy?!?!?!?!

 

[M14 Shooter]

the law was not followed

It's my undestanding that there was no legal basis for deying Holmes the purchase of a firearm.

It's my undestanding that there was no legal basis for deying Holmes the purchase of a firearm
yes because he was kept on the down low
had any of the three mental health care professionals
reported him he would have had a sanity hearing
before this happened

And so, you admit that he had not been adjucated unsound prior to the purchase, verifing my statement that there was no legal basis to deny his purchase of a firearm.

Note that there is no porvision in the law for a "sanity hearing" before the purchase of a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And this thread illustrates the problem with irresponsible rightists, where the New York law is clearly un-Constitutional: it lacks a rational basis, it’s devoid of objective facts and evidence in support of the restrictions, and it’s riddled with conflicting provisions even its authors concede make enforcement problematic.

But rather than attacking the merits of the law, nitwit rightwing extremists have contrived this ‘confiscation’ nonsense which not only fails to convince anyone the law should be repealed or invalidated, but actually has some defending the law.

Once again we see proof that rightwing ‘gun rights’ extremists pose a greater threat to our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

Obama openly supports banning 'assault weapons'.
'Assault weapons' are, by the text of the legislation He supports, rifles, handguns and shotguns.
Thus, Obama suppoorts banning rifles handguns and shotguns.

Please - provide a sound argument to the contrary.

Don't worry - we both know that you know you cannot.

 

[Ernie S.]

How about if you worry about your own family and let me worry about mine?

PinkoJoe wants the government to make all his life's decisions for him, so he projects his inadequacies on everyone else.

And while he can't make his own decisions, he paradoxically thinks he can make them for you and your family.

Progressives are kinda stupid like that.

Guy, the problem is, your decisions don't apply to just you.

For instance, if Adam Lanza, Second Amendment Poster Boy, had just killed himself and his mother, well, that would be the business of their family.

Unfortunately, Adam killed 26 other people who really didn't have a say in that family's gun-nuttery.

And if you guys aren't willing to do what it takes to keep guns out of the hands of Adam Lanza.

Nobody gets them.

And you feel qualified to make that decision?.

Hey! When are you going to address Kellermann's admitted errors?

 

[Ernie S.]

I will repeat what I have shown you 4 or 5 times in the past. If you insist on using Kellerman's bogus numbers, I'll post a thread to discuss Kellerman, OK?

Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[7] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[8] Don Kates, and others.[9]

Additional reading on the subject:

Guy, I've discussed Kellerman with you as much as I'm going to.

Stomping your little feet and saying, "I don't want Kellerman to be true" isn't an argument. It wasn't an argument before I put you on ignore, it's not an argument now.

You put me on ignore? Imagine that!

I have never said whether or not I want Kellermann to be true. I have simply pointed out that even Kellermann admits Kellermann isn't true.
That is the part you refuse to address.


Here it is again, Joe:

While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher.

Suppose you address THAT without hyperbole.

 

[Ernie S.]

Translation: "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!

You'd be funny if you weren't so pathetic, Joey.

Whhhaaah, I'm going to put you on ignore. Whhhaaaahhh....

GMAFB- I don't use ignore period. Scratch that, I used to have one troll on the list but I took him off after his little 'vacation'. The ignore list is a cop out for those who can't handle the pressure.

-Geaux

Actually, I put Ernie on my ignore list because he kept harrassing me with PM's.

No, I kept negging your sorry ass. You chose to reply with lies and hyperbole that I was compelled to reply to. Start an argument via PM and you don't get to decide it's over when it is plain you have lost.
That is not the way a discussion works.

 

[Geaux4it]

And this thread illustrates the problem with irresponsible rightists, where the New York law is clearly un-Constitutional: it lacks a rational basis, it’s devoid of objective facts and evidence in support of the restrictions, and it’s riddled with conflicting provisions even its authors concede make enforcement problematic.

But rather than attacking the merits of the law, nitwit rightwing extremists have contrived this ‘confiscation’ nonsense which not only fails to convince anyone the law should be repealed or invalidated, but actually has some defending the law.

Once again we see proof that rightwing ‘gun rights’ extremists pose a greater threat to our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

 

[BlackSand]

Guy, the problem is, your decisions don't apply to just you.

For instance, if Adam Lanza, Second Amendment Poster Boy, had just killed himself and his mother, well, that would be the business of their family.

Unfortunately, Adam killed 26 other people who really didn't have a say in that family's gun-nuttery.

And if you guys aren't willing to do what it takes to keep guns out of the hands of Adam Lanza.

Nobody gets them.

And you feel qualified to make that decision?.

Hey! When are you going to address Kellermann's admitted errors?

Ernie ... Why do you even argue with someone who actually thinks the idea ... "Nobody gets them" ... Is a plausible response?
Not to mention that you cannot keep criminals for breaking the law to get one anyway ... I guess he has the idea that the government could take firearms away from all the gun owners.

Besides what people fantasize about ... Whether it be the government kicking in doors and taking your guns away ... Or a bunch of rednecks mowing down columns of troops ... The outright banning and confiscation of firearms won't happen here or where you live.
Joe believes the government has power over the people ... But doesn't understand how quickly they can lose that power when it turns it against the people ... Especially when you get into areas where there are more shepherds than sheep.

He has no idea of what would happen if government officials shoot down an 80 year old man who has hunted since he was 6 in his driveway on national television... For telling the government they can go screw themselves and take his lead instead.
When you ask deputies around here what they would do if the order to confiscate weapons from the general public came down ... The general response is ... "Pass you another mag".

.

 

[Ernie S.]

[

But if more people like you would decide to shoot more people like the criminal, there would be less criminals.

The best crime deterrent is a good guy with a gun killing a bad guy with a gun

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux

If that were the case, why does the US have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world instead of the lowest?

If guns and jails made us safer- we have 300 million guns and 2 million prisoners.. and obviously, you don't feel safe.

As opposed to Japan where they only have 500,000 guns and 69,000 prisoners, and Japanese Ladies can walk the streets at night safely.

Have you been to Japan? They are a homogeneous society; 98.5% Japanese.
They do not have a small 6% segment of society committing over half of their violent crimes.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh, boy, here we go, googling the few cases where someone shot a burglar before he realized people were home.

Hey, maybe as a counterpoint, we can post all those stories about kids who shot themselves with their parents guns?

All 12? Do you realize how seldom that happens?

 

[Ernie S.]

If that were the case, why does the US have the highest crime rate in the industrialized world instead of the lowest?

If guns and jails made us safer- we have 300 million guns and 2 million prisoners.. and obviously, you don't feel safe.

As opposed to Japan where they only have 500,000 guns and 69,000 prisoners, and Japanese Ladies can walk the streets at night safely.

I'm safe Joe because I have a gun on me, or within hands reach 24/7. Thug comes into my house, he's dead,

Thug tries the knockout game on the street, I shoot him

A very clear line is drawn with a fat #2 pencil

-Geaux

I'd be more worried you shoot at some poor black kid because you thought he was doing the knockout game, and he just wanted to ask you directions...

if you are so paranoid you feel you need to have a gun on you 24-7, then you are clearly not feeling very safe...

There in lies your problem, Joe. No one wants to shoot and in 99% of cases, we don't.
About 20 years ago, I was walking up the alley after work when a "poor black kid" armed with a knife approached me. All he needed to see was the grips of my .44. I never actually touched the gun, much less shoot him.
40 years ago, the sound of a shell being racked into my Winchester pump shotgun was enough to discourage a man from breaking down my door to rape my then wife.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bottom line......................

We believe in FREEDOM JOE.................

How do you represent Freedom by trying to impose on us what you believe in Joe...........

You believe you have the right to enforce your ideals on us and that's it's righteous Joe...........

Who are you to tell us how to Live Joe...............................
Who are you to tell us what to believe Joe.........................
If we don't agree with you, you want to Force your Beliefs on us with Laws Joe..........

Joe.............Joe..............Joe..........................

And by the way, I own guns Joe......................I've never had to use them to defend myself Joe.........................I've hope I never have to Joe................But if the time comes to use that gun in self defense of my home and family I will use it Joe...................I'm not going to wait to hope the police will show up in time to save my family Joe.................I'm going to shoot the attacker Joe.................and protect my family Joe............

But you want to ban all guns Joe............No matter what you say, that is your goal.

You have NO CLUE WHAT FREEDOM MEANS JOE.....................

Guy, the Japanese and the Germans and the Brits don't let average citizens own guns.

And they are every bit as free as we are.

Gun ownership does not equal freedom.

And sorry, the off chance that you might fulfill your snuff fantasy and be able to shoot a burglar some day is not worth the 19,000 sucides and 11,000 murders that easy access to guns facilitate.

Yet people in Japan who live in homes that own knives are 43 times as likely to commit suicide.

 

[BlackSand]

I'd be more worried you shoot at some poor black kid because you thought he was doing the knockout game, and he just wanted to ask you directions...

if you are so paranoid you feel you need to have a gun on you 24-7, then you are clearly not feeling very safe...

Oh come on now Joe ... There is no difference in your paranoia and anyone else's ... Other than the fact someone armed is capable of doing something if the necessity arises.

See buddy ... You miss one very important part.
I would have a lot more respect for you if you said my ability to own firearms was so much of a threat ... That you would volunteer to lay your life on the line to come take them away.
If you had any principles you were willing to die for ... Then you would be worth listening to.

You just lack the courage of your convictions ... And want someone else to trot off to the slaughter on your account.

.

 

[daveman]

How about if you worry about your own family and let me worry about mine?

PinkoJoe wants the government to make all his life's decisions for him, so he projects his inadequacies on everyone else.

And while he can't make his own decisions, he paradoxically thinks he can make them for you and your family.

Progressives are kinda stupid like that.

Guy, the problem is, your decisions don't apply to just you.

For instance, if Adam Lanza, Second Amendment Poster Boy, had just killed himself and his mother, well, that would be the business of their family.

Unfortunately, Adam killed 26 other people who really didn't have a say in that family's gun-nuttery.

And if you guys aren't willing to do what it takes to keep guns out of the hands of Adam Lanza.

Nobody gets them.

Never going to happen, Pinko. Never.

 

[daveman]

Did you know that JFK was a life long member of the NRA

Yeah, but that was before the NRA went nuts.

The NRA used to support sensible gun laws.

For instance, when the Black Panthers armed themselves in the 1960's. (After a couple of their members were shot by police in their sleep) Governor Ronald Reagan signed a law against


Black Panthers and Gun Control: The NRA's Flip Flop - The Root

Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The NRA actually helped craft similar legislation in states across the country.

So what has changed?

Basically, the country did. Hunting fell out of fashion as a sport, kind of being reduced from a middle class passtime to the passtime of sadistic rednecks. The number of homes with a firearm in them dropped from 60% in the 1950's to about 39% today.

Then the gun industry decided, we need to sell as many guns to that 39% as we can. And we can only do that if they are really, really scared. So we make darn sure there are enough loopholes to keep the crooks and the crazy armed so other people will want guns, too.

You just type any old dumbassed thing that pops into your head, don't you?

 

[daveman]

[

Since police are not obligated to come to your aid, who will?

-Geaux

Or maybe you just let the guy take your TV, and be done with it.

Because, frankly, you guys keep talking about how you are keeping us safe, but I'm a lot more concerned about the gun nuts than I am about criminals.

Very interesting. Please tell us more on the virtues of allowing criminals to commit crimes upon our property and person? I would like to hear your reasoning

-Geaux

 

[daveman]

Or maybe you just let the guy take your TV, and be done with it.

Because, frankly, you guys keep talking about how you are keeping us safe, but I'm a lot more concerned about the gun nuts than I am about criminals.

Very interesting. Please tell us more on the virtues of allowing criminals to commit crimes upon our property and person? I would like to hear your reasoning

-Geaux

Okay, here you go.

It's 1987, when I was off on manuevers. When I got back, someone had broken into my place and took my TV set. Wasn't even a good TV set. They also swiped my VCR.

You know what, I got over it.

Now, imagine in your sick gun nutter fantasy if I had been home and shot that guy.

I think, honestly, I'd be feeling guilty about it for the rest of my life. You and Dave wouldn't. It's a fantasy you have. But you'd probably shit yourself if you ever did.

I have a family to defend, not just a television. A wife and two daughters.

You want me to let criminals do whatever they want to them.

Fuck you, asshole. I'll kill any son of a bitch that tries to harm my family.

 

[daveman]

$500 Reward for Reporting ?Illegal Guns? In New York // Mr. Conservative

Operation Safe Streets...............

Turn in your neighbors for $500. Ain't that cute................

Yes, progressives love it when people inform on their neighbors.