Strict gun laws aren't so much about reducing gun violence but putting gun owners in their place

[dbell1989]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

 

[idb]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

 

[Darkwind]

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

 

[idb]

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

Nah...the OP said this;
"I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect."

 

[miketx]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

Come get them loser.

 

[harmonica]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

The vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime

You don't seem to understand that stripping the rights of law abiding people will have absolutely no effect on what criminals do

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

 

[harmonica]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

The purpose of a tool is determined by the person using it.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a chosen target. What that target is is determined by the person wielding the gun.

It seems that , according to your logic, that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun owners are using their guns for something other than what you say they were designed for.

 

[BluesLegend]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

Shall NOT be infringed

 

[Deno]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

Out of my cold dead hands Tard...........

You commie libtards will never take our guns....

You ever see the old western movie Shane?

Son, a gun is a tool, no better or worse than the man using it....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

Nice threatening post, there, cupcake. After the last round of shootings and dying school children, you just slip away into obscurity. The Children's deaths speak much louder than you can. The last round in Colorado won't affect our gun regs at all. But our gun regs kept the body count down. And one very courageous young martyred lady did her part.

 

[depotoo]

Guns are designed to protect, not kill. That is where your argument goes wrong.
Approximately .0012% of licensed gun owners use them illicitly.

Now, in 2011, only 8% of all violent crime involved a gun.

A sock, possibly?

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

 

[harmonica]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

The purpose of a tool is determined by the person using it.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a chosen target. What that target is is determined by the person wielding the gun.

It seems that , according to your logic, that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun owners are using their guns for something other than what you say they were designed for.

.....wrong--pistols/rifles are designed to kill - you can't deny that--well you can, then we know for sure you are out of your mind
....cars designed for transportation and survivability
...a hammer is NOT designed to kill--but to hammer nails---it will not kill efficiently/etc ---------NOT determined by the person

...you need to get into reality---your mind is warped.....I worked in an engineering department----tools are designed to do certain things efficiently--if you use them for something else, they do not do it efficiently
.....you are either a troll/dumbass/out of your mind/all 3

 

[miketx]

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

The purpose of a tool is determined by the person using it.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a chosen target. What that target is is determined by the person wielding the gun.

It seems that , according to your logic, that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun owners are using their guns for something other than what you say they were designed for.

.....wrong--pistols/rifles are designed to kill - you can't deny that--well you can, then we know for sure you are out of your mind
....cars designed for transportation and survivability
...a hammer is NOT designed to kill--but to hammer nails---it will not kill efficiently/etc ---------NOT determined by the person

...you need to get into reality---your mind is warped.....I worked in an engineering department----tools are designed to do certain things efficiently--if you use them for something else, they do not do it efficiently
.....you are either a troll/dumbass/out of your mind/all 3

You distorted the meaning of his post like a true gun banner.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think the main purpose of passing gun laws is to reduce gun deaths, or even to reduce crime. To me, it's a beneficial side effect.

I see the main purpose of strict gun laws as "sending a message" to gun owners that their right to own a firearm is not absolute, that they are not sovereign individuals but are subject to law and the demands of the greater community, that they must compromise and learn to play nice with other people who don't share their views. The attitude of gun owners and their extreme defensiveness needs to be confronted with strength, law, and order. Gun owners want us to kneel before them and say that their **** doesn't stink.

This defiance needs to be confronted, put down, and checked. Liberty must be balanced with law and order. Gun owners are becoming an interest group that is too powerful. An example needs to be made out of them.

If they choose to lash out in violence, make an example out of those who do. I believe in checks and balances, and the gun lobby and gun owners need to be "checked and balanced" with strict laws that let them know - you don't own the place.

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

The purpose of a tool is determined by the person using it.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a chosen target. What that target is is determined by the person wielding the gun.

It seems that , according to your logic, that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun owners are using their guns for something other than what you say they were designed for.

Gotta keep those guns out of the hands of crazies

Something the NRA fights

 

[Blues Man]

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

The purpose of a tool is determined by the person using it.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a chosen target. What that target is is determined by the person wielding the gun.

It seems that , according to your logic, that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun owners are using their guns for something other than what you say they were designed for.

.....wrong--pistols/rifles are designed to kill - you can't deny that--well you can, then we know for sure you are out of your mind
....cars designed for transportation and survivability
...a hammer is NOT designed to kill--but to hammer nails---it will not kill efficiently/etc ---------NOT determined by the person

...you need to get into reality---your mind is warped.....I worked in an engineering department----tools are designed to do certain things efficiently--if you use them for something else, they do not do it efficiently
.....you are either a troll/dumbass/out of your mind/all 3

The purpose of any tool is determined by the user.

If I use a baseball bat to cave your skull in the purpose of the bat as I decided was to cave in your skull.

 

[Blues Man]

So...the point of your post is that "strict gun laws" could reduce gun deaths or crime but...fuck that and fuck the greater public good...you can't tell me what to do!

exactly---

Funny use of keywords.

Subject. Suborning the group's rights over the individual.

Now for a little truth.

Gun owners ARE the greater community and we don't want you to kneel before us. We want you to leave us alone and as Americans, we'll back that want with strength, courage, and philosophy that defense of liberty is no vice.

There are 100 million gun owners with over 200 million guns. If we were the problem, you'd know it.

So, you go ahead and come at us and see what happens to you. Your little diatribe and cowardice don't impress.

..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

The purpose of a tool is determined by the person using it.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a chosen target. What that target is is determined by the person wielding the gun.

It seems that , according to your logic, that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun owners are using their guns for something other than what you say they were designed for.

Gotta keep those guns out of the hands of crazies

Something the NRA fights

How do you define who is crazy or not?

If a person can pass a background check they can buy a gun.

I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[harmonica]

exactly---
..guns are designed to KILL very easily---it just makes obvious sense that something designed to KILL[ humans ] should be regulated more than something designed for transportation/medicine/etc

Whether or not a gun kills is decoded by the wielder of the gun.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people who obtain and use their guns legally will never kill anyone

that passed right over your head--again--you argue AGAINST common sense
..gun designed to kill--you CANNOT deny this
..cars designed for transportation --you cannot deny this
something designed to KILL--very easily-- should be regulated more than cars/etc

The purpose of a tool is determined by the person using it.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a chosen target. What that target is is determined by the person wielding the gun.

It seems that , according to your logic, that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun owners are using their guns for something other than what you say they were designed for.

Gotta keep those guns out of the hands of crazies

Something the NRA fights

How do you define who is crazy or not?

If a person can pass a background check they can buy a gun.

I see nothing wrong with that.

you said guns are not designed to kill ----
ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that's why the military uses them.....I guess hunters use cars for hunting.......???!!!!!