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

[BULLDOG]

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.

I understand it would take a reasonable person to see a good law can exist even if something less reasonable exists on the other end of the country. That might be more than you are capable of.

 

[nat4900]

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

We could go back-n-forth with how anyone wishes to "interpret" the 2nd amendment.....

Had the founding fathers simply written........."Every American citizen should have a weapon"...then, the argument would not be necessary....but they did NOT write that, did they?

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

I'm not sure what RKBA means, but those unelected lawyers were called for in our constitution, and I think that works pretty good. I tend to approve of the constitution.

 

[nat4900]

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.

Which is why your ilk is so much more "patriotic" and manly......You KNOW guns and a semi-automatic rifle is EXACTLY what you need to defend your sorry ass in some NYC hovel, isn't that so?

 

[martybegan]

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.

I understand it would take a reasonable person to see a good law can exist even if something less reasonable exists on the other end of the country. That might be more than you are capable of.

Why would I support infringing more on my fellow citizens when I am already infringed to the point of a de facto ban? Its called principles.

Your side is full of people who want to ban private ownership of firearms. As long as they are the ones pushing more regulations, Not. One. Step. Back.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Which is why your ilk is so much more "patriotic" and manly......You KNOW guns and a semi-automatic rifle is EXACTLY what you need to defend your sorry ass in some NYC hovel, isn't that so?

Again, all i want is a revolver, and it would take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get one. No compromise until I get my basic rights back.

And who the fuck are you to decide if I need a semi-auto rifle or not?

 

[martybegan]

rms.

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?

I'm not sure what RKBA means, but those unelected lawyers were called for in our constitution, and I think that works pretty good. I tend to approve of the constitution.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Tell that to Dred Scott, Plessey, and those people who got shafted by the Kelo decision.

 

[Norman]

Once again, theses two graphs obliterate the OP:

The op tries to make the stats look worse by including suicides and not understanding the effects the black community has... leftist lies as to be expected.

Time to give the boot to these authoritarian fucks who think you should not have guns, but Obama the messiah should have all of them. As we know the government has provided massive amounts of guns to terrorists. I wonder, were the background checks made properly? No, those are just for the law abiding.

 

[easyt65]

"Perhaps the most controversial topic on these forums, is this love of guns by right wingers who....."

Obama has armed...
- The Muslim Brotherhood
- Al '9/11/01 and 9/11/12' Qaeida
- ISIS
- Mexican Drug cartels

Chicago, run by Obama's ex-Chief of Staff. So far this year:
- 1200 people have been shot
- 240 people have been killed - 50% higher than the record-setting total in 2015

Liberals want schools to be 'gun-free zones' where not even qualified / trained teachers should have access to weapons in order to defend the kids from the occasional 'freaks' who IGNORE the 'Gun Free Zone' and murder kids...

Liberals believe that all we need to end gun violence are MORE LAWS - because if we pass enough one day the violent criminals will decide they had better start obeying the law....despite some of the most violent cities in the country having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Despite more Americans being killed by HAMMERS and CLUBS each year than with 'assault rifles' every year Liberals are on a crusade to eliminate those 'evil killing machines'...

Liberals completely ignore the issue of mental illness, completely ignore places like Chicago where 26 people were shot last weekend and instead wait until some lone shooter kills 3 - 4 kids at a school to politicize it and play upon people's emotions to try to push their anti-gun agenda. Obama didn't even try to hide the fact that he was doing it this last time it happened.

It's like people going 'ape-shite' (pun intended) over the Gorilla being shot to protect a little boy last week yet not batting an eye when thousands of children are aborted every year.

And people like the OP partisanly rails against 'right-wing obsession' with guns.

Liberals have proven they can NOT keep us safe. Hell, not long ago a terrorist OBAMA brought into the country killed 12 Americans. They do nothing about the slaughter going on in Chicago but try to sell the country on their concern about gun violence - a blatantly obvious ploy to take away people's guns which is their goal.

Evil teaches tolerance until they have the power to silence and force into submission the opposition. Our Founding Fathers KNEW this. The military is sworn to defend this nation from enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC, and that is partly why they created the 2nd Amendment. Some Liberals this, know that Americans will not 'submit' to oppression and enslavement as long as Americans have guns.

The LIBERAL 'obsession' with oppressive gun control and finally gun confiscation is not and never has been about 'saving lives'...if it was about saving lives they would have done something about Chicago already instead of letting it slide into 'hell'. Every person shot, every person murdered in Chicago now is adding to yet another consecutive new record in gun violence / murder in Chicago, and they aren't doing anything.

It's NOT about saving lives.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I understand it would take a reasonable person to see a good law can exist even if something less reasonable exists on the other end of the country. That might be more than you are capable of.

Why would I support infringing more on my fellow citizens when I am already infringed to the point of a de facto ban? Its called principles.

Your side is full of people who want to ban private ownership of firearms. As long as they are the ones pushing more regulations, Not. One. Step. Back.

And your side is full of people who dress up in cammo and prance into coffee shops with locked an loaded ar15s in hopes of a fire fight. A real post-apocalyptic compound mentality. Are you going to side with the crazies to prevent laws that could save lives?

 

[defcon4]

The respect and reverence of the founding documents are alien to you and as I gather from your previous posts throughout a span of time I suspect you are alien to the U.S. anyway, so I do not understand your concern.

Your should know (but probably do not) that all-out "reverence" of the founding documents is a bit nuts. The 13th amendment allowed for human beings (slaves) to be counted as 3/5 of a person.....If you feel that ALL of our founding documents are tantamount to tablets from Mt. Sinai, then you are a "true" right winger.

Show me any reference to servitude or slavery in the original founding documents. All I can see is: "…, that all men are created equal…"

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

How is that relevant? You claimed preparation was fear. Walmart is prepared for fire, apparently you aren't. That makes you stupid.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I understand it would take a reasonable person to see a good law can exist even if something less reasonable exists on the other end of the country. That might be more than you are capable of.

Why would I support infringing more on my fellow citizens when I am already infringed to the point of a de facto ban? Its called principles.

Your side is full of people who want to ban private ownership of firearms. As long as they are the ones pushing more regulations, Not. One. Step. Back.

And your side is full of people who dress up in cammo and prance into coffee shops with locked an loaded ar15s in hopes of a fire fight. A real post-apocalyptic compound mentality. Are you going to side with the crazies to prevent laws that could save lives?

How many of those "crazies" have actually used their guns to commit crimes?

What actual harm have they imposed on anyone?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I understand it would take a reasonable person to see a good law can exist even if something less reasonable exists on the other end of the country. That might be more than you are capable of.

Why would I support infringing more on my fellow citizens when I am already infringed to the point of a de facto ban? Its called principles.

Your side is full of people who want to ban private ownership of firearms. As long as they are the ones pushing more regulations, Not. One. Step. Back.

And your side is full of people who dress up in cammo and prance into coffee shops with locked an loaded ar15s in hopes of a fire fight. A real post-apocalyptic compound mentality. Are you going to side with the crazies to prevent laws that could save lives?

I don't own any camo stuff, roast my own beans and don't prance. You are so full of shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Which is why your ilk is so much more "patriotic" and manly......You KNOW guns and a semi-automatic rifle is EXACTLY what you need to defend your sorry ass in some NYC hovel, isn't that so?

Again, all i want is a revolver, and it would take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get one. No compromise until I get my basic rights back.

And who the fuck are you to decide if I need a semi-auto rifle or not?

Again, I have no dog in the NYC fight. That is one town in a country with hundreds of thousands of towns. I have a simi-auto 1100, and I intend to keep it. There is a big difference in my shot gun with a limited amount of shells, and a military style rifle designed for continuous use and extended capacity clips. I have a reasonable use for my 1100, even if I miss the big ones sometimes, but nobody needs to fire 800 rounds per minute unless they are at war.

 

[BULLDOG]

rms.

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?

I'm not sure what RKBA means, but those unelected lawyers were called for in our constitution, and I think that works pretty good. I tend to approve of the constitution.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Tell that to Dred Scott, Plessey, and those people who got shafted by the Kelo decision.

You've been fairly rational up to now. If you want to start implying there might be some sort of armed confrontation with the government, you can go fuck your self . That's nuts.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Which is why your ilk is so much more "patriotic" and manly......You KNOW guns and a semi-automatic rifle is EXACTLY what you need to defend your sorry ass in some NYC hovel, isn't that so?

Again, all i want is a revolver, and it would take me 3-6 months and $1000 to get one. No compromise until I get my basic rights back.

And who the fuck are you to decide if I need a semi-auto rifle or not?

Again, I have no dog in the NYC fight. That is one town in a country with hundreds of thousands of towns. I have a simi-auto 1100, and I intend to keep it. There is a big difference in my shot gun with a limited amount of shells, and a military style rifle designed for continuous use and extended capacity clips. I have a reasonable use for my 1100, even if I miss the big ones sometimes, but nobody needs to fire 800 rounds per minute unless they are at war.

it's a city of 8 million people, and the laws there are similar to laws in other large cities.

and "military style rifle" is not an actual weapon class, it's a semi-automatic rifle with SCARYPARTS!!!!!!.

And its not about 800 rounds a minute, its about laws that restrict people to 7-10 round mags when the bad guys won't follow the same rules.

If they are such a great idea, why don't police apply the same limits to themselves?

 

[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.

How is that relevant? You claimed preparation was fear. Walmart is prepared for fire, apparently you aren't. That makes you stupid.

That the best you can do? Try again, but not so silly this time.

 

[martybegan]

rms.

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?

I'm not sure what RKBA means, but those unelected lawyers were called for in our constitution, and I think that works pretty good. I tend to approve of the constitution.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Tell that to Dred Scott, Plessey, and those people who got shafted by the Kelo decision.

You've been fairly rational up to now. If you want to start implying there might be some sort of armed confrontation with the government, you can go fuck your self . That's nuts.

I'm referring to your trust in the courts. The courts are the ones that keep saying the NYC laws are just dandy, the Courts are the ones that created rights to abortion and gay marriage out of thin air, the courts are the ones that said Separate but Equal was OK a century ago, and that Kelo and Citizens united were just dandy.

Agree or disagree with the individual rulings, but the Courts have been wrong in the past, and considering how far they have branched from interpreting law to creating law, that should make any person very very nervous.

And there is always a "chance" that government will go haywire requiring an armed response, it may be close to zero, but it is always there.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I understand it would take a reasonable person to see a good law can exist even if something less reasonable exists on the other end of the country. That might be more than you are capable of.

Why would I support infringing more on my fellow citizens when I am already infringed to the point of a de facto ban? Its called principles.

Your side is full of people who want to ban private ownership of firearms. As long as they are the ones pushing more regulations, Not. One. Step. Back.

And your side is full of people who dress up in cammo and prance into coffee shops with locked an loaded ar15s in hopes of a fire fight. A real post-apocalyptic compound mentality. Are you going to side with the crazies to prevent laws that could save lives?

How many of those "crazies" have actually used their guns to commit crimes?

What actual harm have they imposed on anyone?

So let the crazies prance around with guns because they haven't shot anybody close to you lately? There was a shooting in Houston last week Cops shot the nut with a gun who just wanted to shoot things up, and a gun nut with an ar ot ak, I don't remember which, that wanted to join in and play Rambo. The cops didn't know who was who, so they shot them both.