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

[Skull Pilot]

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.

When was the last time someone was convicted in court for littering?

I am all for draconian laws for crimes especially violent crimes

 

[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?

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

But you fully support the others that do.

 

[easyt65]

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?

1. 'Your side'? You mean 'Americans who believe in their 2nd Amendment Right', that DOES include many Democrats, BTW?!

2. You got something against Cammo? Hunters or just anyone? Do you hate them wearing it in coffee shops because you can't see them when you walk in?

3. 'Prance'? Dude, guys wearing cammo, especially those exercising their right to carry a concealed weapon, do not 'prance'....Guys carrying AR15s most assuredly do not 'prance'...

4. I have NEVER seen anyone with a 'locked and loaded' AR15 in a coffee shop...and I doubt you have either...unless you go to a Starbucks in Havana, Cuba.

5. Suggesting that anyone carrying a weapon legally 'hopes to be in a firefight' has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard anyone say. It's called 'for protection'. Why would anyone need a gun for protection? In case for some God-awful reason they decided to go to Chicago or attend a Trump rally - so they can protect themselves from the violent lawless liberals!

6. "Are you going to side with the crazies to prevent laws that could save lives?"
- Again, some of THE most violent, lawless cities in this nation are governed by Liberals and who have some of the strictest laws in the nation. Until you figure out how to get criminals to obey those laws, disarming law-abiding citizens ain't gonna help, dude! Why don't you start adding more laws in Chicago and tell me if that stops the record-setting violence there.....

 

[martybegan]

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.

You got a link for your information?

 

[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.

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?

The AR15 can fire between 700 and 950 rounds per minute. Look it up.
I don't care what they look like. If it is designed for continuous use, it's more gun than a civilian needs. You know cops have reasonable expectation of needing extended firing that a civilian doesn't, and that that is a dumb comparison

 

[BULLDOG]

rms.

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.

You keep going to the ARMED WAR WITH GOVERNMENT thing. That's just nuts. Work calls. gotta go.

 

[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?

The AR15 can fire between 700 and 950 rounds per minute. Look it up.
I don't care what they look like. If it is designed for continuous use, it's more gun than a civilian needs. You know cops have reasonable expectation of needing extended firing that a civilian doesn't, and that that is a dumb comparison

that works out to 12 rounds per second at the low end. Are you telling me an unmodified AR-15 can spit out that many rounds using a 30 round mag?

 

[martybegan]

rms.

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.

You keep going to the ARMED WAR WITH GOVERNMENT thing. That's just nuts. Work calls. gotta go.

I'd rather just be armed at home, considering criminals don't follow laws, and will be armed regardless of the laws passed.

The idea of 2nd is to make any tyrant think twice over using government to run roughshod over people.

 

[kaz]

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 actually do believe your own crap, don't you?

 

[amrchaos]

Well, does it not depend on the type of gun.

Some of them are critical about glocks and highly particular in terms of AR-15 accessories.

I bet they go crazy over a classic Derringer!

 

[g5000]

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

What gun ban?

 

[g5000]

Chicago gun laws not as strict as GOP candidates claim

 

[nat4900]

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?

Actually, they're of equal standing.......The founding fathers ....by their OWN admission....were NOT saints nor were they infallible (quite a few of them were slave owners and proud of it) and although they were visionaries and borrowed quite a bit from the concept of democracy from both the Greeks and Native American tribes....they well knew that their Constitution had many aspects that needed to be amended.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Actually, there of equal standing.......The founding fathers ....by their OWN admission....were NOT saints nor were they infallible (quite a few of them were slave owners and proud of it) and although they were visionaries and borrowed quite a bit from the concept of democracy from both the Greeks and Native American tribes....they well knew that their Constitution had many aspects that needed to be amended.

Then AMEND it, don't use courts as an end run.

 

[nat4900]

Your side is full of people who want to ban private ownership of firearms.

Bullshit....NO ONE is proposing the ban on owning some firearms....BUT SOME guns are just insane to have around one's home just waiting for a deranged mind to use for carnage.....To "claim" that the bad, bad government wants to disarm you is total bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

So that means no other laws could be reasonable?

Liberals never stop at reasonable. They don't even slow down at reasonable.

It doesn't appear that the unreasonable laws in Chicago and DC reduced gun crime, which reasonable laws do you think will reduce gun crime, if any?

 

[martybegan]

Your side is full of people who want to ban private ownership of firearms.

Bullshit....NO ONE is proposing the ban on owning some firearms....BUT SOME guns are just insane to have around one's home just waiting for a deranged mind to use for carnage.....To "claim" that the bad, bad government wants to disarm you is total bullshit.

So why do I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a home use revolver permit in NYC?

 

[nat4900]

It doesn't appear that the unreasonable laws in Chicago and DC reduced gun crime, which reasonable laws do you think will reduce gun crime, if any?

Given THAT "rationale" we should not have ANY laws against drugs...their sales and abuses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

What gun ban?

When Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982, it was part of a trend. Washington, D.C., had done it in 1976, and a few Chicago suburbs took up the cause in the following years. They all expected to reduce the number of guns and thus curtail bloodshed.

District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer told The Washington Post in 2007, "It's a pretty common-sense idea that the more guns there are around, the more gun violence you'll have." Nadine Winters, a member of the Washington City Council in 1976, said she assumed at the time that the policy "would spread to other places."

But the fad never really caught fire — even before last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the D.C. law and cast doubt on the others, including the Chicago ordinance before the court Tuesday. The Second Amendment may kill such restrictions, but in most places, it wasn't needed to keep them from hatching in the first place.

Maybe that's because there were so many flaws in the basic idea. Or maybe it was because strict gun control makes even less sense at the municipal level than it does on a broader scale. At any rate, the policy turned out to be a comprehensive dud.

In the years following its ban, Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent — at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.

Chicago followed a similar course. In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.

Chicago's pointless handgun ban

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't appear that the unreasonable laws in Chicago and DC reduced gun crime, which reasonable laws do you think will reduce gun crime, if any?

Given THAT "rationale" we should not have ANY laws against drugs...their sales and abuses.

Gun bans didn't work, didn't result in reduced gun crime. Not to mention they were unconstitutional.

You want to argue about drug laws? Go ahead.