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

[Uncensored2008]

[

Well, you're wrong on me asking that subsequent question.....I know EXACTLY why some folks "need" an AR-15.....after all, Bambi can be a mean mother.

Is an AR-15 an "assault rifle?" I mean, it has PLASTIC on it!

 

[g5000]

Here is an example of you being obsessed with someone having to prove they NEED an assault weapon, Nat:

As usual, wrong counter argument.......Exactly who:

.......states that I need guns to protect my self from the government thugs?
.......states that I need ANY and ALL guns to defend my family and property?
.......states that "I'll never give up my guns" because I don't want to be relocated to a camp by a foreign-born, Muslim president?
.......states that I need my guns because those Mexicans are taking jobs from Americans
.......states that I need my guns to kill abortion clinic workers............and

Who simply states that rapid-fire, assault-style weapons should NOT be manufactured and sold for profit, so that once normal citizens don't FLIP and get pissed off one day......and slaughter pre-schoolers?

YOU JUDGE who lives in fear.

You clearly believe someone should have to prove they NEED certain types of guns. You clearly feel they DO NOT NEED them, and therefore somehow don't have a right to them.

Just as I said. You have no understanding of what a right is whatsoever.

Just think about this standard of "need" you are putting on our rights and apply it to our other rights, and see how you react. Do people NEED midget porn? No? Then we can ban it. See how that works?

You are also projecting your own fear on others! You see every assault weapon as something that will inevitably be used to kill pre-schoolers, and then claim it is the gun owner who is living in fear? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You are TERRIFIED, Nat.

Terrified.

 

[g5000]

Don't sit there and pretend that when someone brings up an AR-15, your next question wasn't going to be, "Why do you NEED and AR-15?"

Well, you're wrong on me asking that subsequent question.....I know EXACTLY why some folks "need" an AR-15.....after all, Bambi can be a mean mother.

With this response, you are admitting you don't believe people NEED an AR-15 and that somehow means we can revoke their right to them.

Your "need" criteria can have far ranging consequences beyond gun rights, dumbass.

 

[g5000]

I agree with the fact that some gun rights advocates are mistaken in the belief that more guns means more safety. It doesn't.

Every developed country that has enacted strict gun control measures has a much lower homicide rate then we do. Anyone who denies this is an idiot.

It's common sense that if we ban guns, we will see a commensurate drop in homicides.

But it is also true that if we ban free speech, we will see a commensurate drop in hateful speech and porn and all those 24 hour "news" channels we hate so much. So that would be cool, huh? But no one will ever be allowed to criticize whatever dictator we have at the moment, either.

And if we repeal the First Amendment, then we can start rounding up Muslims.


Freedom isn't painless. But it is better than the alternative. This is the thing the control freaks never get.

 

[g5000]

We don't NEED a hack liberal political channel like MSNBC. All they do is sow hate.

We don't NEED Muslims. Every Muslim is a hazard just waiting to "FLIP and get pissed off one day......and slaughter pre-schoolers".

 

[g5000]

LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

 

[g5000]

There's clowns to the Left of me, jokers to the Right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you...

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Nah its an unrequited love of the Constitution and my rights.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Don't sit there and pretend that when someone brings up an AR-15, your next question wasn't going to be, "Why do you NEED and AR-15?"

Well, you're wrong on me asking that subsequent question.....I know EXACTLY why some folks "need" an AR-15.....after all, Bambi can be a mean mother.

An AR-15 is not a very good hunting rifle.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

I think your premise is flawed and your bias is showing.

I've been a gun owner all my life and I have debated gun rights issues extensively. Not only have I never once claimed that "more guns equals less killings" I have never witnessed anyone else using that kind of rhetoric either.

 

[Chuz Life]

Don't sit there and pretend that when someone brings up an AR-15, your next question wasn't going to be, "Why do you NEED and AR-15?"

Well, you're wrong on me asking that subsequent question.....I know EXACTLY why some folks "need" an AR-15.....after all, Bambi can be a mean mother.

An AR-15 is not a very good hunting rifle.

Except maybe for coyotes.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Here is an example of you being obsessed with someone having to prove they NEED an assault weapon, Nat:

As usual, wrong counter argument.......Exactly who:

.......states that I need guns to protect my self from the government thugs?
.......states that I need ANY and ALL guns to defend my family and property?
.......states that "I'll never give up my guns" because I don't want to be relocated to a camp by a foreign-born, Muslim president?
.......states that I need my guns because those Mexicans are taking jobs from Americans
.......states that I need my guns to kill abortion clinic workers............and

Who simply states that rapid-fire, assault-style weapons should NOT be manufactured and sold for profit, so that once normal citizens don't FLIP and get pissed off one day......and slaughter pre-schoolers?

YOU JUDGE who lives in fear.

You clearly believe someone should have to prove they NEED certain types of guns. You clearly feel they DO NOT NEED them, and therefore somehow don't have a right to them.

Just as I said. You have no understanding of what a right is whatsoever.

Just think about this standard of "need" you are putting on our rights and apply it to our other rights, and see how you react. Do people NEED midget porn? No? Then we can ban it. See how that works?

You are also projecting your own fear on others! You see every assault weapon as something that will inevitably be used to kill pre-schoolers, and then claim it is the gun owner who is living in fear? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You are TERRIFIED, Nat.

Terrified.

I guess you believe

Of course, you right wingers well know that NO ONE is proposing to eliminate the 2nd amendment (the NRA well bribes our elected "officials" to ensure that) ...But the "straw man" argument always arises from the right.
However, just ask yourselves "when does sanity finally emerge on the sale of weapons"? Are tanks or bazookas or even a small nuke tacitly allowable within the 2nd amendment?

A tactical nuke is the dumbest thing to use for self-defense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

An AR-15 is not a very good hunting rifle.

The Armalites are not a real good rifle at all. The colt version is better.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Giv

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.

Given the love of violence that we see from the Left at Trump rallies, I am glad the Left hates guns. Those thugs would be shooting Trump supporters.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

The rifle can do it. I know that nobody can pull the trigger that fast, and there are aftermarket stocks that use the recoil to help speed up the time between trigger pulls at he expense of control. The gun it's self is capable of that much and more.

 

[Grizz]

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.

Is it your educated opinion that by passing more gun laws crime will drop?

 

[BULLDOG]

rms.

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.

I have guns at home too, and will use them if needed. That has nothing to do with background checks or magazine capacity. Again, talk of an armed confrontation with the military by law abiding citizens is nothing more that a fantasy enjoyed by crazies.

 

[nat4900]

Is it your educated opinion that by passing more gun laws crime will drop?

NO, crime will NOT drop.....but mass carnages would be lessened if we stop indiscriminate sales of weapons manufactured SOLELY for the purpose of mass shootings and killings.

 

[80zephyr]

How about you left wingers not worry about my guns? As long as no one tries to break into my home threaten me or my family they have nothing to fear about my gun no matter what their race, gender, or political affiliation.

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.

With the emergence of "carry" laws over the last few decades, we are having the scenario that you envision play out. However, since the carnage is not going up(actually its going down) it would appear that your fears of these "Rambo's" is unfounded.

Now the question is, why is it that with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, does the left insist that the loosening of gun laws will cause problems when it is obvious that it hasn't?

Mark

 

[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.

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?

Universal background checks and magazine limits would be reasonable.