No….they don't want to get rid of our guns…they just said so, as they put up legislation to do it...

[BULLDOG]

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Only a coward think's he needs a fire extinguisher when making Banana's Foster.....

were you attacked by a banana?

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

 

[Conservative65]

You must have an extremely small short comings to have such a HUGE fixation with guns.

You must not have a set of balls if you're scared that anyone owns them.

 

[Conservative65]

No one wants to "get rid" of your guns; no one can force you to "get rid" of your guns.

Not according to many of your ideology on this forum. More than one has said when they, whoever the hell they is, comes to get them, you'll give them up.

 

[martybegan]

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Only a coward think's he needs a fire extinguisher when making Banana's Foster.....

were you attacked by a banana?

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

Yet you have an issue with your fellow citizens wanting to defend themselves with a simple handgun.....

Who's afraid of what or who?

 

[depotoo]

only a fool believes the world is all sunshine and lollipops

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

 

[BULLDOG]

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Only a coward think's he needs a fire extinguisher when making Banana's Foster.....

were you attacked by a banana?

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

Yet you have an issue with your fellow citizens wanting to defend themselves with a simple handgun.....

Who's afraid of what or who?

No reason to believe someone carrying a gun knows how to use it or has the reasoning ability to know when to use it. Not many innocent bystanders killed by someone misusing a fire extinguisher.

 

[BULLDOG]

only a fool believes the world is all sunshine and lollipops

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

I agree, but what does that have to do with this conversation?

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Only a coward think's he needs a fire extinguisher when making Banana's Foster.....

were you attacked by a banana?

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

Better than what you prance around in.

 

[BULLDOG]

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Only a coward think's he needs a fire extinguisher when making Banana's Foster.....

were you attacked by a banana?

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

Better than what you prance around in.

Sorry, but with this bad hip, My prancing days are long gone.

 

[martybegan]

Only a coward think's he needs a fire extinguisher when making Banana's Foster.....

were you attacked by a banana?

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

Yet you have an issue with your fellow citizens wanting to defend themselves with a simple handgun.....

Who's afraid of what or who?

No reason to believe someone carrying a gun knows how to use it or has the reasoning ability to know when to use it. Not many innocent bystanders killed by someone misusing a fire extinguisher.

But the possibility exists. Also, how many legal CCW permit holders have killed innocent bystanders?

 

[BULLDOG]

were you attacked by a banana?

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

Yet you have an issue with your fellow citizens wanting to defend themselves with a simple handgun.....

Who's afraid of what or who?

No reason to believe someone carrying a gun knows how to use it or has the reasoning ability to know when to use it. Not many innocent bystanders killed by someone misusing a fire extinguisher.

But the possibility exists. Also, how many legal CCW permit holders have killed innocent bystanders?

More often than you think. You hear about the woman who shot up the Home Depot parking lot trying to be John Wayne, or the Guy in Houston trying to stop a car theft who shot the owner of the car in the head?

 

[martybegan]

It's not the banana, its the fire. by your logic people who take the precaution of having a fire extinguisher with them when they flambe' something are "cowards"

I've said many times. I don't have a problem if you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance around town.

Yet you have an issue with your fellow citizens wanting to defend themselves with a simple handgun.....

Who's afraid of what or who?

No reason to believe someone carrying a gun knows how to use it or has the reasoning ability to know when to use it. Not many innocent bystanders killed by someone misusing a fire extinguisher.

But the possibility exists. Also, how many legal CCW permit holders have killed innocent bystanders?

More often than you think. You hear about the woman who shot up the Home Depot parking lot trying to be John Wayne, or the Guy in Houston trying to stop a car theft who shot the owner of the car in the head?

Two? out of the millions of gun owners and millions of guns?

I can come up with two examples of the fucking police wounding bystanders, and for some reason you feel A-OK with them having firearms just because they work for the government.

Look up the NYC empire state building shooting, and that car shooting in California.

 

[the_human_being]

It's coming. You'd better believe it. The number of hunters and other outdoor types is on the downturn. This new generation doesn't even venture outdoors much at all. They are a fat bunch of couch and entitlement potatoes. Most are terribly obese and out of shape. They walk around taking selfies and texting. They have little interest in sports at all. Most have been spoon-fed a bunch of junk by their Liberal teachers and are incapable of independent thought.

Being a hunter or outdoors man doesn't make you a gun nut. Being a coward who thinks he need to hide behind a gun all the time makes you a gun nut

Well, I'm hardly qualified to be a gun nut. Having lost my right arm, I can't handle a rifle or shotgun and I can't hit the side of a barn with a pistol in my left hand. I do however realize that it is the hunters who actually support most of the wildlife preservation efforts with the money they spend on license fees, tags, etc., and keep the wildlife population healthy. I have absolutely no problem with gun owners. Let them spend their money any way they wish to spend it.

I'm on of those gun owners. The large majority of us believe reasonable restrictions are the best safest way to deal with guns. Gun nuts who prance around town with a gun strapped to their leg are an entirely different group.

I haven't seen one of those doing that in Pensacola.

I haven't been to Pensacola lately, but there are plenty around here.

Not walking around with guns hung on their sides. You need a concealed carry and they mean concealed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Only fearful people want to ban guns

Only people in your imagination want to ban guns. Can you name one legitimate effort to take your guns?

So these bills looking to ban all semiautomatics are my imagination?

I never said the there weren't some who wanted to ban all guns, but they are nothing more than a counterbalance to right wingers here who think we should all have grenade launchers. There is no legitimate effort to take your guns. Exaggerating the facts of legitimate bills, as you regularly do, just makes you look childish.

I exaggerated nothing I merely asked if the bills being proposed to ban semiautomatic weapons were only in my imagination as you stated earlier

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact is folks that rifles of any kind are used in very few murders

More people are killed by fists and feet than by any type of rifle so this call to restrict or ban any semiautomatic is nothing but knee jerk reactionary fear

Not fear. Most shootings are done with handguns, which have no purpose except to kill people. However, if a nutcase wants to go shoot up a Starbucks or a movie theater, let him or her do it one slow bullet at a time. Less damage that way. I have no idea what O'Malley is doing in the race, but I like what he said, "No self-respecting hunter I've ever met needs an AR-15 to take down a deer."

You don't even know what an AR 15 is

Here let me educate you

This AR15

Is functionally no different than this rifle

And people use the latter for hunting all the time

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact is folks that rifles of any kind are used in very few murders

More people are killed by fists and feet than by any type of rifle so this call to restrict or ban any semiautomatic is nothing but knee jerk reactionary fear

Not fear. Most shootings are done with handguns, which have no purpose except to kill people. However, if a nutcase wants to go shoot up a Starbucks or a movie theater, let him or her do it one slow bullet at a time. Less damage that way. I have no idea what O'Malley is doing in the race, but I like what he said, "No self-respecting hunter I've ever met needs an AR-15 to take down a deer."

Handguns are excellent self defense weapons and can defuse a potential dangerous situation without killing anyone and without even being fired

 

[OldLady]

The fact is folks that rifles of any kind are used in very few murders

More people are killed by fists and feet than by any type of rifle so this call to restrict or ban any semiautomatic is nothing but knee jerk reactionary fear

Not fear. Most shootings are done with handguns, which have no purpose except to kill people. However, if a nutcase wants to go shoot up a Starbucks or a movie theater, let him or her do it one slow bullet at a time. Less damage that way. I have no idea what O'Malley is doing in the race, but I like what he said, "No self-respecting hunter I've ever met needs an AR-15 to take down a deer."

You don't even know what an AR 15 is

Here let me educate you

This AR15

Is functionally no different than this rifle

And people use the latter for hunting all the time

Are they both semi-automatics? Great! Ban them both. One bullet at a time, nice and slow, to take down your animal. Those magazines with super #'s of bullets aren't necessary, either. Thanks for the pictures, though.

 

[BULLDOG]

Being a hunter or outdoors man doesn't make you a gun nut. Being a coward who thinks he need to hide behind a gun all the time makes you a gun nut

Well, I'm hardly qualified to be a gun nut. Having lost my right arm, I can't handle a rifle or shotgun and I can't hit the side of a barn with a pistol in my left hand. I do however realize that it is the hunters who actually support most of the wildlife preservation efforts with the money they spend on license fees, tags, etc., and keep the wildlife population healthy. I have absolutely no problem with gun owners. Let them spend their money any way they wish to spend it.

I'm on of those gun owners. The large majority of us believe reasonable restrictions are the best safest way to deal with guns. Gun nuts who prance around town with a gun strapped to their leg are an entirely different group.

I haven't seen one of those doing that in Pensacola.

I haven't been to Pensacola lately, but there are plenty around here.

Not walking around with guns hung on their sides. You need a concealed carry and they mean concealed.

Not in Houston.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Do you lock your doors?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes…they want to get rid of our guns and only lack the ability to do it…..it they had the power those guns would be gone in a flash….

CPRC at National Review: "A Semi-Automatic Handgun Ban Wouldn’t Stop Mass Shooters" - Crime Prevention Research Center

From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns.
This Democrat goal is nothing new, of course — in 1998, Illinois state senator Barack Obama supported a “ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons” — but for years, gun-control advocates wanted to ban guns based on appearances. Now, instead of arbitrarily going after guns because of how they look, Democrats are at least being logically consistent and talking about banning guns based on how they function.

But no…they really don't want to ban our guns…….right?

Only a coward thinks he needs to be armed to face the world, You should seek counseling for your debilitating fear.

Do you lock your doors?

You really want to try to compare a locked door to rambo wannabees prancing around in public with guns? That's just dumb.