No one is going to take your guns

[Pogo]

well you are wrong. one did in a mall like a year ago. but you know why gun owners haven's stopped many massacres? because liberal idiots like you have banned guns or guns have been banned in the locations the massacres took place. once again, you own the blood. if not for your reactionary actions, the public would have been armed. if liberal morons hadn't violated the constitution, the public would have been armed. you own the blood.

Sorry, but that is simply insane. You're advocating that more and more and more blood should be shed as long as the last man standing is a good guy. That is In.Sane.

Why doesn't anybody get the folly of escalation?

and how do you get that out of what I said? to his point, an armed citizen has never stopped a massacre. one, it was wrong because in a situation where citizens were allowed to be armed, an armed citizen did stop the massacre. in all other situations where massacres have occurred, citizens were not allowed to be armed. so who did the gun laws stop? the criminals? nope. they could give a rats ass about your gun laws. but it did stop the citizens. and what we keep hearing is we have police to stop the criminals? well where were they in all of these cases? in fact where were they in every one of the homicides that occur?

you can ban guns outright and you will not stop someone who wants to have a gun from having a gun. there is no track record at all that shows banning something prevents it. you tried to ban alcohol. the result was a black market. those who wanted it got it. and crime rose because of it. you ban drugs, but those who want it get it. and crime rose because of it. there is a massive black market. ban guns, a massive black market is waiting in the wings. and who will have those guns? criminals. and how many will be registered? 0 you'll have nothing. you won't know where a single gun is. who has what. you will have a massive black market and gangs will grow stronger.

look at NY's safe act. ok assault weapons are banned. well you can't get then form a dealer, but you can sure as hell get them of the streets. so merchants are hurt. the state has lost tax revenue. the state has lost control of who owns what. but people are still buying assault style weapons. why don't gun grabbers realize the folly of their actions? you have no positive results to hang your hat on

Why do you keep reverting to this "gun grabber" and "ban" shit? It's not the point. Never has been.

 

[Pogo]

well you are wrong. one did in a mall like a year ago. but you know why gun owners haven's stopped many massacres? because liberal idiots like you have banned guns or guns have been banned in the locations the massacres took place. once again, you own the blood. if not for your reactionary actions, the public would have been armed. if liberal morons hadn't violated the constitution, the public would have been armed. you own the blood.

Sorry, but that is simply insane. You're advocating that more and more and more blood should be shed as long as the last man standing is a good guy. That is In.Sane.

Why doesn't anybody get the folly of escalation?

The reason to escalate is to make the bad person die.

It's a crime deterrent

-Geaux

That kind of mindset ^^ is the problem.

:::: wwwhooooossshhhhh ::::

 

[JoeB131]

GUn owners have never stopped a massacre in process, not once.

Why do you lie all the time? Why do you make such easily-disproved claims?

9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm

Okay, Dave, here's the thing.

Half of those shootings were stopped by LAW ENFORCEMENT OR MILITARY personnel.

Let's look at some of those descriptions.

1) Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander,

3) Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer,

4) former police officer from Minnesota named Jeanne Assam

5) He was eventually stopped in a shoot-out involving Salt Lake City Police Department SWAT that took place in a Pottery Barn Kids. He was cornered, however, by off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond, who held him in position before authorities could arrive.

7) Off-duty police officer Donald J. Moore stopped Abraham Dickan

9) The gunman was eventually shot and struck by an off-duty police officer, Lisa Castellano,


So your best NINE cases, and six of them were stopped by police or military personnel.

You know, that government you hate when they aren't sending you a check.

 

[Geaux4it]

Sorry, but that is simply insane. You're advocating that more and more and more blood should be shed as long as the last man standing is a good guy. That is In.Sane.

Why doesn't anybody get the folly of escalation?

The reason to escalate is to make the bad person die.

It's a crime deterrent

-Geaux

That kind of mindset ^^ is the problem.

:::: wwwhooooossshhhhh ::::

What's the problem?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

[

Thats because the overwhelming amount of gun owners are law abiding citizens and the recent shootings of media celebration have happened in a gun free zone. Hence, law abiding citizens were denied the right to save just one child.

-Geaux

Guy, let's review.

Columbine had armed guards.
Instead of armed teachers who were there. Oh, and the large capacity mag law in effect was useless

VA Tech had a police force.
Once again, the police are not legally obligated to come to your aid. When seconds count, the police are maybe minutes away

Tuscon was in a conceal carry state
Indeed- And unfortunately, the good guy with a gun showed up to late

Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard were freaking military bases.
Gun free zone for all but the police

nothing stops a madman on a rampage other than making sure he can't get a gun to start with
And wrong again. What stops a bad person with a gun is an armed good person

.

Fixed it

 

[Little-Acorn]

Guy, let's review.

Columbine had armed guards.

But none of the people in the classrooms were allowed to carry guns there. So the shooters were able to blow away dozens, before the cops outside finally decided to take action.

VA Tech had a police force.

But none of the people in the classrooms were allowed to carry guns there. So the shooter was able to blow away dozens, before the cops outside finally decided to take action.

Tuscon was in a conceal carry state

But the people at the political rally were forbidden to bring guns there.

Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard were freaking military bases.

But all the regular workers and soldiers in both places, were forbiddent to carry guns inside. Even the soldiers were required to turn in their guns and let them be locked up in the armory.

nothing stops a madman on a rampage other than making sure he can't get a gun to start with.

In all five places you mention here, great efforts were made to "make sure the madman couldn't get a gun to start with". And in all five places, the madman brought in a gun (or three) anyway. The only ones disarmed, IN EVERY CASE, were law-abiding people. The ones who DON'T go around killing people. They were the only ones, IN EVERY CASE, who were in any position to stop the madmen... but liberals and their laws disarmed them, while allowing the madmen to have guns AND NO OPPOSITION.

Well, little joeB131, how's the review (that you asked for) going so far? Do you feel you have enough information now, to start drawing conclusions about your cherished "gun control laws"?

Or do you need to let a few more madmen blow away a few dozen more law-abiding people THAT YOUR LAWS DISARMED?

Tell me, little joeb131: How many more innocent people need to die, before you start noticing the pattern here IN THE CASES YOU BROUGHT UP YOURSELF, and maybe you start wondering if your cherished "gun control" laws aren't all they're cracked up to be? And that just maybe, they are the problem, not the solution?

Please let us know, little joeb131. Before the next massacre of law-abiding people your laws disarmed, if you don't mind.

 

[martybegan]

[

A pension in the proper sense is paid for from the earnings on principal from whatever the pension is invested in. That most current public union pensions are dependent on general funds to make up the difference due to false return claims does not make a person who earned a pension the same as a person on welfare.

Social security on the other hand, DOES require current people to pay retired people due to the bullshit done in the past where surpluses went into the general fund and magical IOU's were created to make a imaginary reserve fund.

Then you are admitting what Dave and other military retirees are getting is NOT a pension. There was no investment. They are taking directly from taxpayers to pay him off, even though at the current time, he contributes nothing to national defense.

What they are getting is welfare.

And, in principle, I see nothing wrong with that. It's really not easy to adjust from military to private sector work, especially if you've known nothing else.

But just be honest enough to admit what it is, living off the government teet.

At least you don't hear the ObamaPhone lady being an ingrate.

It is not welfare no matter how you try to spin it. They earned it via their service based on a contract between them and the government. They had to follow military regulations for X years to get the pension.

People like you want welfare given out with no strings and no stigma. Also the people on welfare more often than not have NEVER contributed anything to society, it is why unemployment insurance is far more acceptable, and even social security is grudgingly acceptable. People had to pay into it. Most people on welfare have contributed very little to the tax base, if at all.

 

[martybegan]

GUn owners have never stopped a massacre in process, not once.

Why do you lie all the time? Why do you make such easily-disproved claims?

9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm

Okay, Dave, here's the thing.

Half of those shootings were stopped by LAW ENFORCEMENT OR MILITARY personnel.

Let's look at some of those descriptions.

1) Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander,

3) Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer,

4) former police officer from Minnesota named Jeanne Assam

5) He was eventually stopped in a shoot-out involving Salt Lake City Police Department SWAT that took place in a Pottery Barn Kids. He was cornered, however, by off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond, who held him in position before authorities could arrive.

7) Off-duty police officer Donald J. Moore stopped Abraham Dickan

9) The gunman was eventually shot and struck by an off-duty police officer, Lisa Castellano,


So your best NINE cases, and six of them were stopped by police or military personnel.

You know, that government you hate when they aren't sending you a check.

In your world off duty police officers and military people not under orders would be disarmed as well. After all, if we have to be potential victims, they should suffer the same risks as us.

 

[JoeB131]

[

It is not welfare no matter how you try to spin it. They earned it via their service based on a contract between them and the government. They had to follow military regulations for X years to get the pension.

People like you want welfare given out with no strings and no stigma. Also the people on welfare more often than not have NEVER contributed anything to society, it is why unemployment insurance is far more acceptable, and even social security is grudgingly acceptable. People had to pay into it. Most people on welfare have contributed very little to the tax base, if at all.

My welfare is better than your welfare.

Sorry, military people were paid a salary and benefits when they were in, and they get peferential hiring treatment when they get out. That was the exchange. Anything above that is charity.

Same with Social Security and unemployment. Most people use more than they ever pay in if they collect. They have to take from someone else to make good on those payments.

The only difference is that this is "Good" welfare, the kind middle class white people get. We call it an "entitlement", when it is in fact, welfare. (Even Limbaugh has said as much.)

Incidently, I have no problem with welfare having "Strings". I would have no problem requiring able bodied welfare recipiants to work, as long as we make damn sure we find something constructive for them to do. But your plutocratic masters would never go along with that. They'd scream about Communism and shit because they couldn't overcharge the government for a service.

 

[JoeB131]

[

In your world off duty police officers and military people not under orders would be disarmed as well. After all, if we have to be potential victims, they should suffer the same risks as us.

In my world, crazy people and crooks wouldn't have guns to start with, so these folks wouldn't need to be constantly carrying.

My point was, Dave cited nine cases, and six of them were TRAINED professionals, not a George Zimmerman would-be hero shooting someone he thought looked suspicious.

 

[lakeview]

Turns out they lied.

Sherrie Questioning All: The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it

They left out an option...ignore them.

 

[JoeB131]

[
In all five places you mention here, great efforts were made to "make sure the madman couldn't get a gun to start with". And in all five places, the madman brought in a gun (or three) anyway. The only ones disarmed, IN EVERY CASE, were law-abiding people. The ones who DON'T go around killing people. They were the only ones, IN EVERY CASE, who were in any position to stop the madmen... but liberals and their laws disarmed them, while allowing the madmen to have guns AND NO OPPOSITION.

Well, little joeB131, how's the review (that you asked for) going so far? Do you feel you have enough information now, to start drawing conclusions about your cherished "gun control laws"?

Or do you need to let a few more madmen blow away a few dozen more law-abiding people THAT YOUR LAWS DISARMED?

Tell me, little joeb131: How many more innocent people need to die, before you start noticing the pattern here IN THE CASES YOU BROUGHT UP YOURSELF, and maybe you start wondering if your cherished "gun control" laws aren't all they're cracked up to be? And that just maybe, they are the problem, not the solution?

Please let us know, little joeb131. Before the next massacre of law-abiding people your laws disarmed, if you don't mind.

Guy, until we have a NATIONAL gun ban, saying, "Well, the establishment in question didn't allow guns in" is kind of silly.

It's like declaring a tiny bit of ocean a "Shark Free Zone" when the rest of the ocean is filled with sharks and the sharks can come and go as they please.

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

 

[lakeview]

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

Is this a joke or are you serious?

 

[Geaux4it]

[
In all five places you mention here, great efforts were made to "make sure the madman couldn't get a gun to start with". And in all five places, the madman brought in a gun (or three) anyway. The only ones disarmed, IN EVERY CASE, were law-abiding people. The ones who DON'T go around killing people. They were the only ones, IN EVERY CASE, who were in any position to stop the madmen... but liberals and their laws disarmed them, while allowing the madmen to have guns AND NO OPPOSITION.

Well, little joeB131, how's the review (that you asked for) going so far? Do you feel you have enough information now, to start drawing conclusions about your cherished "gun control laws"?

Or do you need to let a few more madmen blow away a few dozen more law-abiding people THAT YOUR LAWS DISARMED?

Tell me, little joeb131: How many more innocent people need to die, before you start noticing the pattern here IN THE CASES YOU BROUGHT UP YOURSELF, and maybe you start wondering if your cherished "gun control" laws aren't all they're cracked up to be? And that just maybe, they are the problem, not the solution?

Please let us know, little joeb131. Before the next massacre of law-abiding people your laws disarmed, if you don't mind.

Guy, until we have a NATIONAL gun ban, saying, "Well, the establishment in question didn't allow guns in" is kind of silly.

It's like declaring a tiny bit of ocean a "Shark Free Zone" when the rest of the ocean is filled with sharks and the sharks can come and go as they please.

Disarm everyone except the police. No one else needs them. Period.

Then why does the police need guns?

-Geaux

 

[OODA_Loop]

Incidently, I have no problem with welfare having "Strings". I would have no problem requiring able bodied welfare recipiants to work, as long as we make damn sure we find something constructive for them to do.

We don't have to find anything.

Take the jobs illegals are doing.

Two problems solved.

 

[JoeB131]

Incidently, I have no problem with welfare having "Strings". I would have no problem requiring able bodied welfare recipiants to work, as long as we make damn sure we find something constructive for them to do.

We don't have to find anything.

Take the jobs illegals are doing.

Two problems solved.

Okay, as long as they get a decent wage and all the fair labor laws that people who hire illegals are ignoring, no problem there.

 

[daveman]

You know what, we have 32,000 gun deaths a year in this country, and most of those people DIDN'T Deserve to die.

But that's okay by you. As long as you cling to your gun and your bible, you feel safe....

I'm safer than you are with your strategy of bending over and hoping the criminal will use lube.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what, we have 32,000 gun deaths a year in this country, and most of those people DIDN'T Deserve to die.

But that's okay by you. As long as you cling to your gun and your bible, you feel safe....

I'm safer than you are with your strategy of bending over and hoping the criminal will use lube.

No, you're really not, because if a criminal really wanted to take you out, he would.

 

[daveman]

Sorry, but that is simply insane. You're advocating that more and more and more blood should be shed as long as the last man standing is a good guy. That is In.Sane.

Why doesn't anybody get the folly of escalation?

So we should just let the shooter keep firing until he's out of ammo?

Uh... no. We should remove the shooter's incentive to blindly follow the religion of Almighty Gun in the first place.

The gun is merely a tool. If there was an effective, 100% ban of guns, crazy people bent on violence would find other tools.

Knives:
22 Kids Slashed in China Elementary School Knife Attack - ABC News

Machetes:
Kenya Machete Massacre Leaves 29 Dead

Homemade bombs:
Deadly bombs rock Boston marathon - CBS News

Cars:
Isla Vista massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no religion of the gun. There is a culture of violence.

And there's the culture of irrational hatred of guns:

Why insist on removing people's means of self-defense?

 

[daveman]

GUn owners have never stopped a massacre in process, not once.

Why do you lie all the time? Why do you make such easily-disproved claims?

9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm

Okay, Dave, here's the thing.

Half of those shootings were stopped by LAW ENFORCEMENT OR MILITARY personnel.

Let's look at some of those descriptions.

1) Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander,

3) Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer,

4) former police officer from Minnesota named Jeanne Assam

5) He was eventually stopped in a shoot-out involving Salt Lake City Police Department SWAT that took place in a Pottery Barn Kids. He was cornered, however, by off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond, who held him in position before authorities could arrive.

7) Off-duty police officer Donald J. Moore stopped Abraham Dickan

9) The gunman was eventually shot and struck by an off-duty police officer, Lisa Castellano,


So your best NINE cases, and six of them were stopped by police or military personnel.

You know, that government you hate when they aren't sending you a check.

They were all off-duty, and were carrying their own personal weapons.

You know, the kind of weapons you would forbid.

So -- you failed. Yet again.