Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So then let's surrender! Let's accept the corpses of children in schools, the bodies of innocents in theaters and the lost lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire during a drive by shooting. The price seems high, but as any and all efforts to reduce gun violence are to stupefying to be acceptable, our lot is to be shot at to defend the shooter's 2nd amendment rights. Public safety be damned. Solutions are not workable under any circumstances. What a wonderful world we are entering! Rambo wannabes and those who cannot fathom a solution. The idiots now rule!First and foremost: universal back ground checks. If indeed it's the irresponsible or irrational user of the gun that presents the problem, we should take all means necessary to prevent them from getting a gun in their hands. Universal back ground checks are popular, bipartisan, and a good first step.
Secondly, a ban on high capacity magazines. If indeed guns are used for self defense, ten rounds should be sufficient. Once you arm yourself with the means to discharge more than ten rounds, you have gone from a defensive weapon to an offensive weapon. No sportsman should Ned more than ten rounds to drop his game, no home owner needs more than ten round to deter a criminal. Who needs more than ten rounds? Gangbangers not known for thei marksmanship and lunatics wishing to kill as many innocent victims in a theater or school.
If you would care to propose a method by which ordinary gun owners have a way to do background checks, I am not opposed. It is, however, nonsense to think that will prevent gun violence.
from:Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Use by Offenders
"A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends."
from:FBI ? 2008 Operations Report
"In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied."
from:Evaluation and Inspection Report
"According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps."
So it is pretty clear that additional background checks would not do much to reduce gun related crime. It is even clearer that the holy grail of issues, the Gun Show myth, is not the huge danger that some claim it to be.
As for high capacity magazines, I find it amusing that you think you know how many rounds it takes to defend a home or someone's family. The truth is, the high capacity magazine is not particularly dangerous. The only semi-auto I have that is suitable for self-defense has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds (7 in the standard mag). I can reload in less than 2 seconds. So unless you are in a position to grab and disarm me in less than 2 seconds, it makes no difference whatsoever. You pretty much have to be within arms reach of the shooter and be counting the number of shots fired (and know how many the particular gun holds). I would be willing to bet that if you were crouched down 15 feet away from me, I could reload a double action revolver before you could reach me. That someone cannot reload a semi-auto faster is due to their own lack of ability, much like the fact that they fired 19 rounds and hit 6 people.
.
Your ignorance is exposed here. In fact, those that carry demonstrate EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE kind of attitude. We go out of our way to avoid confrontation. We mind our own damn business. We NEVER reach for a firearm unless our lives are in danager.
You're speaking for all gun owners here?
You speaking for all leftist idiots here?
Hell yes! Every hear of a lunatic shooting up a gun store business where everyone is armed? Didn't think so...
hmm!
EXCLUSIVE: 51 Upcoming Gun Shows Ban Loaded Weapons To Promote 'A Safe Environment'
By Scott Keyes
January 11, 2013
<snip>
For every event, their stated rationale for not permitting loaded weapons in the gun show was simple: safety. Crossroads Gun Show, a touring event across the western United States, explained on their website:
Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.At most shows, if an attendee brings a personal firearm, he or she must check it at the door and use a tie so that they cannot be operated, be breached or loaded.
A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.
<snip>
.[/COLOR
A gun show is not a firearm store where everyone is armed, is it genius? Go into a gun store. Every employee will be packing and I assure you, there's one under the proverbial counter. Every hear of a mass shooting at a gun store? Again, didn't think so.
Further, gun shows are held in public facilities that are gun free zones regardless of who is occupying the facility. Given that firearms are going to passed back and forth between people at a gun show, it only makes sense to ensure they're not loaded. That passing back and forth of firearms doesn't happen at a place of work.
Duh.
My goodness, are you really this stupid or are you being a disingenuous fuck on purpose?
Given your history around here, I'm going with both.
That's a big assumption from such a small mind!So then let's surrender! Let's accept the corpses of children in schools, the bodies of innocents in theaters and the lost lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire during a drive by shooting. The price seems high, but as any and all efforts to reduce gun violence are to stupefying to be acceptable, our lot is to be shot at to defend the shooter's 2nd amendment rights. Public safety be damned. Solutions are not workable under any circumstances. What a wonderful world we are entering! Rambo wannabes and those who cannot fathom a solution. The idiots now rule!If you would care to propose a method by which ordinary gun owners have a way to do background checks, I am not opposed. It is, however, nonsense to think that will prevent gun violence.
from:Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Use by Offenders
"A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends."
from:FBI ? 2008 Operations Report
"In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied."
from:Evaluation and Inspection Report
"According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps."
So it is pretty clear that additional background checks would not do much to reduce gun related crime. It is even clearer that the holy grail of issues, the Gun Show myth, is not the huge danger that some claim it to be.
As for high capacity magazines, I find it amusing that you think you know how many rounds it takes to defend a home or someone's family. The truth is, the high capacity magazine is not particularly dangerous. The only semi-auto I have that is suitable for self-defense has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds (7 in the standard mag). I can reload in less than 2 seconds. So unless you are in a position to grab and disarm me in less than 2 seconds, it makes no difference whatsoever. You pretty much have to be within arms reach of the shooter and be counting the number of shots fired (and know how many the particular gun holds). I would be willing to bet that if you were crouched down 15 feet away from me, I could reload a double action revolver before you could reach me. That someone cannot reload a semi-auto faster is due to their own lack of ability, much like the fact that they fired 19 rounds and hit 6 people.
You fucking idiot. Making it illegal to defend our kids in schools where they are sitting ducks is not going to make them safer.
I'm so sick of this shit. Put your own kids out in the open with a big sign that says "You can shoot me, nobody will do anything" if you want. But don't force the rest of us to do the same.
So then let's surrender! Let's accept the corpses of children in schools, the bodies of innocents in theaters and the lost lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire during a drive by shooting. The price seems high, but as any and all efforts to reduce gun violence are to stupefying to be acceptable, our lot is to be shot at to defend the shooter's 2nd amendment rights. Public safety be damned. Solutions are not workable under any circumstances. What a wonderful world we are entering! Rambo wannabes and those who cannot fathom a solution. The idiots now rule!First and foremost: universal back ground checks. If indeed it's the irresponsible or irrational user of the gun that presents the problem, we should take all means necessary to prevent them from getting a gun in their hands. Universal back ground checks are popular, bipartisan, and a good first step.
Secondly, a ban on high capacity magazines. If indeed guns are used for self defense, ten rounds should be sufficient. Once you arm yourself with the means to discharge more than ten rounds, you have gone from a defensive weapon to an offensive weapon. No sportsman should Ned more than ten rounds to drop his game, no home owner needs more than ten round to deter a criminal. Who needs more than ten rounds? Gangbangers not known for thei marksmanship and lunatics wishing to kill as many innocent victims in a theater or school.
If you would care to propose a method by which ordinary gun owners have a way to do background checks, I am not opposed. It is, however, nonsense to think that will prevent gun violence.
from:Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Use by Offenders
"A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends."
from:FBI ? 2008 Operations Report
"In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied."
from:Evaluation and Inspection Report
"According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps."
So it is pretty clear that additional background checks would not do much to reduce gun related crime. It is even clearer that the holy grail of issues, the Gun Show myth, is not the huge danger that some claim it to be.
As for high capacity magazines, I find it amusing that you think you know how many rounds it takes to defend a home or someone's family. The truth is, the high capacity magazine is not particularly dangerous. The only semi-auto I have that is suitable for self-defense has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds (7 in the standard mag). I can reload in less than 2 seconds. So unless you are in a position to grab and disarm me in less than 2 seconds, it makes no difference whatsoever. You pretty much have to be within arms reach of the shooter and be counting the number of shots fired (and know how many the particular gun holds). I would be willing to bet that if you were crouched down 15 feet away from me, I could reload a double action revolver before you could reach me. That someone cannot reload a semi-auto faster is due to their own lack of ability, much like the fact that they fired 19 rounds and hit 6 people.
I bet that winterborn has the answer. He knows EVERYTHING about guns. Why do gun show organizers not allow people attending the show to carry their personal weapons into the show? What are the organizers concerned about do you think?
You find that part where Fed EX, or was it OHSA that promised to defend employees against crazies with a gun?
That's a big assumption from such a small mind!So then let's surrender! Let's accept the corpses of children in schools, the bodies of innocents in theaters and the lost lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire during a drive by shooting. The price seems high, but as any and all efforts to reduce gun violence are to stupefying to be acceptable, our lot is to be shot at to defend the shooter's 2nd amendment rights. Public safety be damned. Solutions are not workable under any circumstances. What a wonderful world we are entering! Rambo wannabes and those who cannot fathom a solution. The idiots now rule!
You fucking idiot. Making it illegal to defend our kids in schools where they are sitting ducks is not going to make them safer.
I'm so sick of this shit. Put your own kids out in the open with a big sign that says "You can shoot me, nobody will do anything" if you want. But don't force the rest of us to do the same.
I offered two solutions to gun violence: universal back ground checks and banning magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and both of those ideas were dismissed as unworkable.
So, since no one can offer any solutions, I. Surrender to gun violence. I am forced by the unimaginative to accept the cost in blood for the fun of e shooter.
You know what, Koshergirl? What if there is no such thing as PMS and this turns out to be just your personality?
my other solutions have similarly been dismissed as either politically unworkable or virtually impractical. So, as no gun lover has any ideas, I am forced to surrender to their whims. Forced to turn a blind eye to gun violence and accept it as the price of living in a nation obsessed with guns.So then let's surrender! Let's accept the corpses of children in schools, the bodies of innocents in theaters and the lost lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire during a drive by shooting. The price seems high, but as any and all efforts to reduce gun violence are to stupefying to be acceptable, our lot is to be shot at to defend the shooter's 2nd amendment rights. Public safety be damned. Solutions are not workable under any circumstances. What a wonderful world we are entering! Rambo wannabes and those who cannot fathom a solution. The idiots now rule!If you would care to propose a method by which ordinary gun owners have a way to do background checks, I am not opposed. It is, however, nonsense to think that will prevent gun violence.
from:Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Use by Offenders
"A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends."
from:FBI ? 2008 Operations Report
"In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied."
from:Evaluation and Inspection Report
"According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps."
So it is pretty clear that additional background checks would not do much to reduce gun related crime. It is even clearer that the holy grail of issues, the Gun Show myth, is not the huge danger that some claim it to be.
As for high capacity magazines, I find it amusing that you think you know how many rounds it takes to defend a home or someone's family. The truth is, the high capacity magazine is not particularly dangerous. The only semi-auto I have that is suitable for self-defense has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds (7 in the standard mag). I can reload in less than 2 seconds. So unless you are in a position to grab and disarm me in less than 2 seconds, it makes no difference whatsoever. You pretty much have to be within arms reach of the shooter and be counting the number of shots fired (and know how many the particular gun holds). I would be willing to bet that if you were crouched down 15 feet away from me, I could reload a double action revolver before you could reach me. That someone cannot reload a semi-auto faster is due to their own lack of ability, much like the fact that they fired 19 rounds and hit 6 people.
Wow, that is quite a melt down.
I offered documented evidence and you explode with an emotional tirade?
lol
Who has the political will to spend billions on prisons while cutting benefits to the elderly and impoverished? Who has the political will to keep an even larger percentage of our citizens behind bars?That's a big assumption from such a small mind!You fucking idiot. Making it illegal to defend our kids in schools where they are sitting ducks is not going to make them safer.
I'm so sick of this shit. Put your own kids out in the open with a big sign that says "You can shoot me, nobody will do anything" if you want. But don't force the rest of us to do the same.
I offered two solutions to gun violence: universal back ground checks and banning magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and both of those ideas were dismissed as unworkable.
So, since no one can offer any solutions, I. Surrender to gun violence. I am forced by the unimaginative to accept the cost in blood for the fun of e shooter.
You know what, Koshergirl? What if there is no such thing as PMS and this turns out to be just your personality?
I offered documented evidence concerning the background checks and personal observations about magazine capacities. I notice you dismissed my offered solution of keeping violent felons behind bars? Since I also offered documented evidence that a large percentage of those felons released are rearrested for committing violent crime, I would think it was a good idea.
I bet that winterborn has the answer. He knows EVERYTHING about guns. Why do gun show organizers not allow people attending the show to carry their personal weapons into the show? What are the organizers concerned about do you think?
You find that part where Fed EX, or was it OHSA that promised to defend employees against crazies with a gun?
Wow, you really have issues, don't you. I showed you where OSHA requires that companies provide a safe working environment for their employees and that workplace violence is a recognized hazard. The fact that none of the current OSHA policies contain the phrase "crazies with a gun" seems to be your sticking point. I find that amusing.
I appreciate your vote of confidence on my knowledge of firearms. I do agree that it is quite extensive.
Who has the political will to spend billions on prisons while cutting benefits to the elderly and impoverished? Who has the political will to keep an even larger percentage of our citizens behind bars?That's a big assumption from such a small mind!
I offered two solutions to gun violence: universal back ground checks and banning magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and both of those ideas were dismissed as unworkable.
So, since no one can offer any solutions, I. Surrender to gun violence. I am forced by the unimaginative to accept the cost in blood for the fun of e shooter.
You know what, Koshergirl? What if there is no such thing as PMS and this turns out to be just your personality?
I offered documented evidence concerning the background checks and personal observations about magazine capacities. I notice you dismissed my offered solution of keeping violent felons behind bars? Since I also offered documented evidence that a large percentage of those felons released are rearrested for committing violent crime, I would think it was a good idea.
Certainly no one with a modicum of forethought. That eliminates the current crop of small government hyperConservatives. They would never agree to expanding the budget to build more government facilities.
We are not reducing gun violence by locking up the criminals for a longer time. They have to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced for that crime to be in prison in the first place. Do you see a lot of shooters being convicted? They usually snuff themselves out in the cafeteria or playground before they can be arrested.
Who has the political will to spend billions on prisons while cutting benefits to the elderly and impoverished? Who has the political will to keep an even larger percentage of our citizens behind bars?That's a big assumption from such a small mind!
I offered two solutions to gun violence: universal back ground checks and banning magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and both of those ideas were dismissed as unworkable.
So, since no one can offer any solutions, I. Surrender to gun violence. I am forced by the unimaginative to accept the cost in blood for the fun of e shooter.
You know what, Koshergirl? What if there is no such thing as PMS and this turns out to be just your personality?
I offered documented evidence concerning the background checks and personal observations about magazine capacities. I notice you dismissed my offered solution of keeping violent felons behind bars? Since I also offered documented evidence that a large percentage of those felons released are rearrested for committing violent crime, I would think it was a good idea.
Certainly no one with a modicum of forethought. That eliminates the current crop of small government hyperConservatives. They would never agree to expanding the budget to build more government facilities.
We are not reducing gun violence by locking up the criminals for a longer time. They have to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced for that crime to be in prison in the first place. Do you see a lot of shooters being convicted? They usually snuff themselves out in the cafeteria or playground before they can be arrested.
.
Your ignorance is exposed here. In fact, those that carry demonstrate EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE kind of attitude. We go out of our way to avoid confrontation. We mind our own damn business. We NEVER reach for a firearm unless our lives are in danager.
You're speaking for all gun owners here?
You speaking for all leftist idiots here?
I don't presume to speak for anyone, and-----and far be it from me to give grammar lessons to-----to anyone, but-----but maybe Unkie can help you out with the meaning of the pronoun "we"... so
so if you're not speaking for yourself and all gun owners I'd guess you're talking for yourself and-----and uh, the-rat-in-your-pocket?
Try to get over your rage, it's just a M/B dude/dudette.
.
I bet that winterborn has the answer. He knows EVERYTHING about guns. Why do gun show organizers not allow people attending the show to carry their personal weapons into the show? What are the organizers concerned about do you think?
You find that part where Fed EX, or was it OHSA that promised to defend employees against crazies with a gun?
Wow, you really have issues, don't you. I showed you where OSHA requires that companies provide a safe working environment for their employees and that workplace violence is a recognized hazard. The fact that none of the current OSHA policies contain the phrase "crazies with a gun" seems to be your sticking point. I find that amusing.
I appreciate your vote of confidence on my knowledge of firearms. I do agree that it is quite extensive.
Oh damn. I have to change my mind about your gun knowledge.
That is stretch just to far to think OHSA should require workers to be armed for work place safety. Crazy as fuck is what that is. But ok. And what you find "amusing" about crazies with guns doesn't speak well for you. Nothing funny about it. You and the other dude are the ones bringing OHSA into the picture. Thinking it would do what for your argument I don't know. Makes you look stupid to think OHSA is the organization responsible for crazies with guns in the work place. That's not the "work place safety" they get involved in.
Now, why do gun show organizers keep gun show patrons from carrying their personal weapons into the gun show. What are the organizers concerned about?
Noticed you didn't want to touch that one. Why not?
Would somebody like to verify this loose excuse and tell me, besides a police or sheriff's station, WHERE guns are allowed on business property?
That's a big assumption from such a small mind!So then let's surrender! Let's accept the corpses of children in schools, the bodies of innocents in theaters and the lost lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire during a drive by shooting. The price seems high, but as any and all efforts to reduce gun violence are to stupefying to be acceptable, our lot is to be shot at to defend the shooter's 2nd amendment rights. Public safety be damned. Solutions are not workable under any circumstances. What a wonderful world we are entering! Rambo wannabes and those who cannot fathom a solution. The idiots now rule!
You fucking idiot. Making it illegal to defend our kids in schools where they are sitting ducks is not going to make them safer.
I'm so sick of this shit. Put your own kids out in the open with a big sign that says "You can shoot me, nobody will do anything" if you want. But don't force the rest of us to do the same.
I offered two solutions to gun violence: universal back ground checks and banning magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds and both of those ideas were dismissed as unworkable.
So, since no one can offer any solutions, I. Surrender to gun violence. I am forced by the unimaginative to accept the cost in blood for the fun of e shooter.
You know what, Koshergirl? What if there is no such thing as PMS and this turns out to be just your personality?
Wow, you really have issues, don't you. I showed you where OSHA requires that companies provide a safe working environment for their employees and that workplace violence is a recognized hazard. The fact that none of the current OSHA policies contain the phrase "crazies with a gun" seems to be your sticking point. I find that amusing.
I appreciate your vote of confidence on my knowledge of firearms. I do agree that it is quite extensive.
Oh damn. I have to change my mind about your gun knowledge.
That is stretch just to far to think OHSA should require workers to be armed for work place safety. Crazy as fuck is what that is. But ok. And what you find "amusing" about crazies with guns doesn't speak well for you. Nothing funny about it. You and the other dude are the ones bringing OHSA into the picture. Thinking it would do what for your argument I don't know. Makes you look stupid to think OHSA is the organization responsible for crazies with guns in the work place. That's not the "work place safety" they get involved in.
Now, why do gun show organizers keep gun show patrons from carrying their personal weapons into the gun show. What are the organizers concerned about?
Noticed you didn't want to touch that one. Why not?
You are welcome to change your mind about whatever you choose. The fact that I do, indeed, have an extensive knowledge of firearms does not change.
I have not said that OSHA or anyone else even advocated, to say nothing or requiring, that employees be armed. So you are inventing what you want me to have said, but I did not.
I do not find "crazies with guns" funny. I did not say that I did. Once again, you are trying to invent what I said.
And workplace violence has been a documented issue with OSHA since at least 2001. So they very much do involve themselves with it. As a link I posted showed.
But if you need any additional information about firearms, feel free to ask or message me.
This does not discount the usefulness of guns if and when a good guy present has one and uses it.
Winterborn. You have dodged the big question.......twice.
Why can't I carry blah blah blah at the gun show. LMAO.
If you can't answer, just say so and I'll tell you why.
