Right wingers unrequited "love" of guns...lots of guns...

[BULLDOG]

If you think you need to be armed all the time, then obviously your controlling emotion is fear. Sorry, but I don't think living with that much fear is healthy.

Do you have a fire extinguisher? If so why are you living in such fear?

If you wish to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance through Walmart, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[martybegan]

So if Mississippi wanted to charge a $1000 fee and impose a 3 week waiting period on abortions, I guess you would be OK with that. After all, its only "one state".

Stupid example.......The right to abort a fetus boils down to what someone wishes to do with HER OWN BODY....Proliferation of guns boils down with what someone wishes to do with SOMEONE ELSE's BODY.

So all gun owners are just seconds away from cutting loose and opening up on everyone around them?

You just don't have a good answer, hence the "stupid example" tripe.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again,you want to hold off on all reasonable restrictions because you are pouting over local laws that you don't like in one town.

No, its because the law in question is the end game for must gun control idiots.

And who told you that? Obviously you are pouting because of laws in one town, so you don't think those same laws would have been enacted by now in other towns if that was the ultimate goal?

It's obvious to anyone who doesn't wear the progressive blinders over their eyes.

NYC wants to ban guns, they went de facto instead of de jure, but the end result is the same.

Not. One. Step. back.

Again. One town.

So if Mississippi wanted to charge a $1000 fee and impose a 3 week waiting period on abortions, I guess you would be OK with that. After all, its only "one state".

Stretching a little far there aren't you? Not the same thing at all.

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you saying that no reasonable gun restrictions will save lives?

Define a "reasonable" restriction.

Why? We've had this conversation before, and you made it clear that you consider no restriction reasonable.

1. Felons can't have guns. Reasonable
2. Instant background check at point of sale. Reasonable
3. No automatic weapons without a special permit, Reasonable.

Everything else is just fluff.

Good. That means you are for universal background checks.

How do you get by what we have now? NICS is pretty universal.

Personal sales.

 

[martybegan]

Then get it repealed. If not, go pound sand.

And it is very well written, if you aren't a mouth breathing twat-waddle with an agenda.

Calm down.........Do you not find a bit of a problem with the 2nd amendment stating a "well-regulated militia"?

That's the first part of the amendment, that prevents the federal government from stopping the States from forming militias as they see fit. the 2nd part, AFTER the comma, relates to the people, and how their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just because States don't feel like forming militias anymore doesn't remove the 2nd part of the amendment.

 

[martybegan]

No, its because the law in question is the end game for must gun control idiots.

And who told you that? Obviously you are pouting because of laws in one town, so you don't think those same laws would have been enacted by now in other towns if that was the ultimate goal?

It's obvious to anyone who doesn't wear the progressive blinders over their eyes.

NYC wants to ban guns, they went de facto instead of de jure, but the end result is the same.

Not. One. Step. back.

Again. One town.

So if Mississippi wanted to charge a $1000 fee and impose a 3 week waiting period on abortions, I guess you would be OK with that. After all, its only "one state".

Stretching a little far there aren't you? Not the same thing at all.

Figures you have to dodge, and not answer the question.

 

[Contumacious]

Perhaps the most controversial topic on these forums, is this love of guns by right wingers who must be walking around perpetually scared....or just compensating for you know what.

No other nation on earth that is not currently involved in an all-out civil war, experiences the gun violence and carnage as does the U.S.......and ANY attempt to curb the sale of more guns is met by vociferous and incessant whining by the gun slingers.....Never mind that somewhat cooler heads within the RNC have banned guns from their upcoming convention, using the somewhat lame excuse that the secret service (a part of the federal government that they so much hate) does not allow them to come to the convention armed to the teeth.

Follow their "logic" for a moment. Most of them repeatedly state that having MORE guns actually equals LESS killings or gun injuries.......That kind of reasoning is the equivalent to stating that having MORE cars on the highways equals LESS car accidents.......A cognitive failure worthy of a rather "slow" 7 year old.

Rightwingers love their lives and so do LIBERTARIANS



MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court

The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you saying that no reasonable gun restrictions will save lives?

Define a "reasonable" restriction.

Why? We've had this conversation before, and you made it clear that you consider no restriction reasonable.

1. Felons can't have guns. Reasonable
2. Instant background check at point of sale. Reasonable
3. No automatic weapons without a special permit, Reasonable.

Everything else is just fluff.

Good. That means you are for universal background checks.

Point of sale background checks. Not "if I hand someone my gun at the rifle range to try I break a background check law" background checks.

And if the government wants people who want to trade guns privately to do a background check, the government should pay for it.

A properly written law shouldn't prevent you from firing a few shots from another's gun at the range. Who pays a couple of bucks for the check isn't really the problem is it? I don't have an opinion on that aspect of it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The ones who want that are a small minority of gun owners and open carry is something I don't support I don't speak for all gun owners but I suspect most feel the same about open carry.

I agree. The majority of Americans are in favor of reasonable gun control. Unfortunately, the NRA, who was once focused on gun safety, abandoned their reasonable goals and became nothing more than the sales wing for gun manufacturers. They push fear of a race war, or a civil war, or the fear of gun confiscation, or any number of other things that aren't going to happen as reason to end all restrictions on guns. The NRA bought our politicians.

Some of us are already dealing with "reasonable" gun control. If what NYC is doing to me is considered "reasonable", then no wonder gun rights people don't trust gun controllers as far as they can throw them.

Work on getting me MY rights back, then we can talk about other regulations.

Again,you want to hold off on all reasonable restrictions because you are pouting over local laws that you don't like in one town.

We currently have 20000 gun laws on the books are you saying that none of them have reasonably restricted gun ownership?

Are those all federal gun laws, or total federal, state and local laws combined? I would suspect many are duplicates or just refinement of earlier laws. Yes, many of them would be reasonable restrictions, and some of them could be bad law. That doesn't mean no other reasonable laws could be enacted.

More isn't always better especially when enforcement is nearly nonexistent.
IMO we only need one gun law.

Life in prison for any crime committed while in the possession of a firearm

 

[martybegan]

Define a "reasonable" restriction.

Why? We've had this conversation before, and you made it clear that you consider no restriction reasonable.

1. Felons can't have guns. Reasonable
2. Instant background check at point of sale. Reasonable
3. No automatic weapons without a special permit, Reasonable.

Everything else is just fluff.

Good. That means you are for universal background checks.

Point of sale background checks. Not "if I hand someone my gun at the rifle range to try I break a background check law" background checks.

And if the government wants people who want to trade guns privately to do a background check, the government should pay for it.

A properly written law shouldn't prevent you from firing a few shots from another's gun at the range. Who pays a couple of bucks for the check isn't really the problem is it? I don't have an opinion on that aspect of it.

Again, you want me to trust the same people that think the laws in NYC and other cities like it are just dandy?

Hell No. It would be like trusting PETA to run the USDA.

 

[Norman]

Perhaps the most controversial topic on these forums, is this love of guns by right wingers who must be walking around perpetually scared....or just compensating for you know what.

No other nation on earth that is not currently involved in an all-out civil war, experiences the gun violence and carnage as does the U.S.......and ANY attempt to curb the sale of more guns is met by vociferous and incessant whining by the gun slingers.....Never mind that somewhat cooler heads within the RNC have banned guns from their upcoming convention, using the somewhat lame excuse that the secret service (a part of the federal government that they so much hate) does not allow them to come to the convention armed to the teeth.

Follow their "logic" for a moment. Most of them repeatedly state that having MORE guns actually equals LESS killings or gun injuries.......That kind of reasoning is the equivalent to stating that having MORE cars on the highways equals LESS car accidents.......A cognitive failure worthy of a rather "slow" 7 year old.

You don't really need logic to verify empirical facts. Most shootings take place in gun free zones.

Many places on earth experience much more violence than USA. And by the way, the black community is responsible for greatly bloating the statistics in USA.

Of course, leftist seem to love violence even more than rightist love their guns. Coercion, theft, criminality, Islam.... Take guns from the opposition so they can't defend themselves against these ideas so great they have to be mandatory.

By all means, let's also verify the general fact

Might want to go ask swizerland what they think of your regressive theory... Everyone in Switzerland has an assault rifle at home.


The real gun control that is needed is stopping Obama from selling weapons to terrorists. How about that?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm a left winger,and I'm not the least bit concerned about your guns if that is the way you use them. Unfortunately, lots of gun nuts want to prance around in public armed to the teeth 24/7. You can't tell me that somebody with a Rambo attitude, just hoping for a chance to shoot somebody, and carrying their own personal armory isn't endangering the public.

The ones who want that are a small minority of gun owners and open carry is something I don't support I don't speak for all gun owners but I suspect most feel the same about open carry.

I agree. The majority of Americans are in favor of reasonable gun control. Unfortunately, the NRA, who was once focused on gun safety, abandoned their reasonable goals and became nothing more than the sales wing for gun manufacturers. They push fear of a race war, or a civil war, or the fear of gun confiscation, or any number of other things that aren't going to happen as reason to end all restrictions on guns. The NRA bought our politicians.

The majority of Americans are in favor of reasonable gun control.

Was the DC and Chicago gun ban reasonable? Did it work?

There are lots of laws that have been struck down. Anything unreasonable will meet the same fate. Big deal.

So it wasn't reasonable and didn't work?

So that means no other laws could be reasonable? I'm not, and never did argue that those laws were reasonable.

 

[nat4900]

So all gun owners are just seconds away from cutting loose and opening up on everyone around them?

Never implied the above.....But when there is an objection to even "regulate" the sale of an assault weapon whose only purpose is to kill both fast and as many individual as possible, THEN sanity should intervene.

 

[BULLDOG]

And who told you that? Obviously you are pouting because of laws in one town, so you don't think those same laws would have been enacted by now in other towns if that was the ultimate goal?

It's obvious to anyone who doesn't wear the progressive blinders over their eyes.

NYC wants to ban guns, they went de facto instead of de jure, but the end result is the same.

Not. One. Step. back.

Again. One town.

So if Mississippi wanted to charge a $1000 fee and impose a 3 week waiting period on abortions, I guess you would be OK with that. After all, its only "one state".

Stretching a little far there aren't you? Not the same thing at all.

Figures you have to dodge, and not answer the question.

No, it wouldn't be reasonable. We can discuss why if you want, but that is a different subject. Why do you want to change the subject?

 

[nat4900]

Many places on earth experience much more violence than USA.

True..........I believe that Somalia and Yemen have MORE gun violence than we do.....
Nice comparison of that "fraternity" of violent nations, don't you think?

 

[martybegan]

So all gun owners are just seconds away from cutting loose and opening up on everyone around them?

Never implied the above.....But when there is an objection to even "regulate" the sale of an assault weapon whose only purpose is to kill both fast and as many individual as possible, THEN sanity should intervene.

The issue is your side has decided that every semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon, because you idiots don't know the first thing about guns.

And again, until I can get a handgun in NYC without paying $1000 or waiting 3-6 months, I don't care.

 

[chikenwing]

Then get it repealed. If not, go pound sand.

And it is very well written, if you aren't a mouth breathing twat-waddle with an agenda.

Calm down.........Do you not find a bit of a problem with the 2nd amendment stating a "well-regulated militia"?

No not at all, do you find it a problem with the right of the people shall not be infringed .
People being me you and everyone else

 

[BULLDOG]

I agree. The majority of Americans are in favor of reasonable gun control. Unfortunately, the NRA, who was once focused on gun safety, abandoned their reasonable goals and became nothing more than the sales wing for gun manufacturers. They push fear of a race war, or a civil war, or the fear of gun confiscation, or any number of other things that aren't going to happen as reason to end all restrictions on guns. The NRA bought our politicians.

Some of us are already dealing with "reasonable" gun control. If what NYC is doing to me is considered "reasonable", then no wonder gun rights people don't trust gun controllers as far as they can throw them.

Work on getting me MY rights back, then we can talk about other regulations.

Again,you want to hold off on all reasonable restrictions because you are pouting over local laws that you don't like in one town.

We currently have 20000 gun laws on the books are you saying that none of them have reasonably restricted gun ownership?

Are those all federal gun laws, or total federal, state and local laws combined? I would suspect many are duplicates or just refinement of earlier laws. Yes, many of them would be reasonable restrictions, and some of them could be bad law. That doesn't mean no other reasonable laws could be enacted.

More isn't always better especially when enforcement is nearly nonexistent.
IMO we only need one gun law.

Life in prison for any crime committed while in the possession of a firearm

A little extreme, but if you want life imprisonment for littering while in possession of a gun, you might have a problem getting that one passed.

 

[Esmeralda]

Perhaps the most controversial topic on these forums, is this love of guns by right wingers who must be walking around perpetually scared....or just compensating for you know what.

No other nation on earth that is not currently involved in an all-out civil war, experiences the gun violence and carnage as does the U.S.......and ANY attempt to curb the sale of more guns is met by vociferous and incessant whining by the gun slingers.....Never mind that somewhat cooler heads within the RNC have banned guns from their upcoming convention, using the somewhat lame excuse that the secret service (a part of the federal government that they so much hate) does not allow them to come to the convention armed to the teeth.

Follow their "logic" for a moment. Most of them repeatedly state that having MORE guns actually equals LESS killings or gun injuries.......That kind of reasoning is the equivalent to stating that having MORE cars on the highways equals LESS car accidents.......A cognitive failure worthy of a rather "slow" 7 year old.

The only other country on the planet that has more guns per person is Yemen.

 

[martybegan]

It's obvious to anyone who doesn't wear the progressive blinders over their eyes.

NYC wants to ban guns, they went de facto instead of de jure, but the end result is the same.

Not. One. Step. back.

Again. One town.

So if Mississippi wanted to charge a $1000 fee and impose a 3 week waiting period on abortions, I guess you would be OK with that. After all, its only "one state".

Stretching a little far there aren't you? Not the same thing at all.

Figures you have to dodge, and not answer the question.

No, it wouldn't be reasonable. We can discuss why if you want, but that is a different subject. Why do you want to change the subject?

It's a discussion over "rights". And considering the RKBA is implicit in the document, and the "right" to an abortion is made up in the minds of a bunch of un-elected lawyers, which one do you think has the stronger standing?