What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[Daryl Hunt]

Stop and Frisk is unamerican and 'regular new yorkers' being denied guns and gun permits is both before and after Stop and Frisk . Course the Elites , politicians and big money people ALL have armed guards , security and HENCHMEN like YOU claim to be paid by Taxpayers 'mrguncontrol' Daryl .

You get what you vote for and New Yorkers consistently vote for all of these things, so apparently they enjoy being serfs on a manor with their lord in control of the land.

In comparison to Chicago, NYers enjoy safer streets, better jobs, better police and fire departments and more. Yes, you get what you vote for.

I’d rather have my liberty and deal with some uncertainty. You apparently would rather sacrifice some of your liberty to be a safeguarded subject of the crown and that’s your choice.

Nothing in life is free.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

Read the news sometime and you will see they are trying to confiscate one step at a time. A new regulation here, a new regulation there, and before you know it, all those regulations will add up to it being virtually impossible to own a firearm. That's why the cancer has to be stopped at first detection.

Democrats are like terrorists. They use increments to reach their ultimate goal and are plenty patient.

New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Signs Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

Do you mean if I vote for a Democrat I immediately must want to confiscate your firearms? Only if you are a danger to Society and yourself. And then only if a Judge rules for your guns to be temporarily removed either by a Law Enforcement or another Family Member. And then, only until the condition either passes or it becomes necessary to have you committed. But before those guns can be removed, you MUST have your time in court to state your case. Welcome to Colorado.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Stop and Frisk is unamerican and 'regular new yorkers' being denied guns and gun permits is both before and after Stop and Frisk . Course the Elites , politicians and big money people ALL have armed guards , security and HENCHMEN like YOU claim to be paid by Taxpayers 'mrguncontrol' Daryl .

You get what you vote for and New Yorkers consistently vote for all of these things, so apparently they enjoy being serfs on a manor with their lord in control of the land.

In comparison to Chicago, NYers enjoy safer streets, better jobs, better police and fire departments and more. Yes, you get what you vote for.

And it has more to do with the proactive policing in NYC than it does gun laws

It's a lot more than that. Its the community getting involved in a positive manner. Gangs only exist when the neighborhoods allow it and there is a lack of jobs. Fix just those two and add the cooperation of the Law Enforcement and you automatically have a reduction in crime since those are the two main contributing factors why the criminals are there in the first place.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

/---/ So little girls and their families don't deserve protection?

You forgot the caption that went with that picture. That wasn't a little girls game. That was the congressional game practice where Scalise was shot.
View attachment 249553

And there were plenty of armed secret service present.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I support the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and carry arms 100%, but it does strike me as a little spineless if someone is too frightened to step foot outside if not packing.
Someone around here has gone so far as to say he’s too scared to go get his mail without a gun. That’s all the way to chickenshitville.

You will see more and more carry. And when the dust clears, the chickenshits will still be alive while those macho brown shirts and bad guys will be dead. Confucious say.....gun beats the perp trying to do the beat down.

And there is no data available that shows this has anything to do with the decrease in the murder or crime rate. Careful, at one point, it's going to reach the saturation level where there are just too many guns and then another problem crops up. I know you gunnutters don't see it but sane people that know history certainly do.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Left has bought into the Media and Democrat driven mantra that all guns are bad, and that they cause violence all by themselves. They don't care if the law abiding is defenseless. They are OK with the victim mentality, and the total dependency, and hence control of GOVERNMENT.

I suggest you stop with the Partisan BS. It cheapens any argument you might otherwise present. You know damn well that not all Democrats think this way. In fact, most don't think this way otherwise, in Democrat Areas, there would be NO firearms allowed at all. Colorado is a Democratic State yet we have extremely lax laws outside of the Metro areas. If you don't like living in the areas that have the harsh (and necessary) gun regulations then move 20 miles down the road to where it is lax. Simple as that. If everyone like you moved that 20 miles, instead of just bitching about it, the areas with the extreme gun laws would have empty houses and have no choice but to shut down. You vote with your feet.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Gun nuts are the ones that have an irrational fear of them. It is an inanimate object. It holds no power until someone USES It. Fear the bad guys that use guns illegally. Punish them.

People who fancy or appreciate guns are a nut.

People who want to spend trillions of dollars because they think man can control the environment are not nuts.

Go figure.

You need to look up what nuts is

nut
|nət| noun

3 informal: a crazy or eccentric person.

• [ with modifier ] a person who is excessively interested in or enthusiastic about a specifiedthing: a football nut.

So I guess you on the left are gun nuts as well, only on the opposite side. You are also abortion nuts, environmental nuts, racist nuts, and gender nuts.

/----/ You forgot Peanuts

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Confucious say......Dumb ass gun nuts are just as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person. Since cops can't tell a dumb ass gun nut from the bad guy, they might take him out too. Dumb ass gun nuts are dumb asses to play cops and robbers.

/----/ Using your logic - if you drive a car and if you drink alcohol the presumption is you are a drunk driver and must be tossed in jail.

No. If you have a history of breaking driving laws, you should not be allowed to legally drive. If you have a history of being a thug, you should not be able to legally buy a gun. We only do background checks for drivers, not gun purchasers.

Stop backpedaling

You said a person is a "good guy" right up until they commit a crime

So that applies to you too and you should have your rights curbed because it's only a matter of time before you commit a crime

No. I said gun nuts and the NRA consider those thugs to be a good guy. A thug is a thug. We need background checks to point that out to gun sellers.

/---/ Like we need voter id laws to weed out illegals?

States have an adequate method of doing that. If a State wants Voter ID then they can get Voter ID. It's not up to the Feds to meddle in State Elections. There are NO federal elections at all. ALL elections are State and lower governments only. And that is who make the rules for their elections. It's unconstitutional for the Feds to get involved in Voter ID.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gun nuts are the ones that have an irrational fear of them. It is an inanimate object. It holds no power until someone USES It. Fear the bad guys that use guns illegally. Punish them.

People who fancy or appreciate guns are a nut.

People who want to spend trillions of dollars because they think man can control the environment are not nuts.

Go figure.

People that simplify all this like you just did are idjits.

 

[Rustic]

The problem is stop and frisk worked. Violent crime went way down. Even after it was rescinded, crime continued to be at a lower rate until word got out.

Murder rate rises 55 percent in New York City, NYPD statistics say

And the problem was, the cops were very, very nervous because the community saw them as a bigger threat than the criminals. It was not a good time to be a cop in those days. You will notice that NYC doesn't have the cop "Murders" that the other cities are having right now. The Citizens cooperate much better with the Cops are taught how to approach a cop on the street. You are attributing stop and frisk as the answer. It was part of the problem. Cops and the Community as well as the Companies creating Jobs always was the answer. Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional very quickly so it had almost zero affect except to cause some discontent in the community that the Cops had to win back.

The link I provided was posted 5 days ago. Let's see how this plays out the next couple of years. I'm willing to bet violent crime will continue to increase.

That's a bet you shouldn't take. And I won't bet on the other way around. A 7 week period is just someone looking for a news item when they are trying to make a slanted point. If you notice, using your own cite, almost all other crimes were down. Plus, the increase was attributed to just one area. And you can bet that there is an increase in law enforcement being done there today. You can't know where to increase your cops until AFTER it's needed.

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Unions never help the individual, unions are all about the union bosses getting powerful and rich

 

[Rustic]

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Even when there was a union the cops did this. And, the unions drove most of the trucking companies out of business. Now there are only a few huge trucking companies. All of the independents are long gone. My friends dad worked for Churchill truck lines in Kansas City. The Teamsters went on strike even after the owner told them that he wouldn't survive if they did. They did anyway. 30 minutes later they all trooped out, and he closed his doors putting hundreds out of work.

Typical union morons.

How do I put this nicely. There are many businesses that shouldn't even be in business. The sooner we can get them done and gone the sooner we can allow the good businesses to flourish. Those hundreds had jobs waiting from the at good trucking companies. Right now, there is a huge shortage of Truckers. And the pay is pretty damned good. If I were 15 years younger I would be driving a Truck. It pays as well as the Oil Field, has about the same hours and it's a damn sight easier on the body. So don't give me that crap about how the Teamsters destroyed the business. If it had been a healthy business the Company would have been able to afford to options; work with the Union or pay the Drivers enough that they didn't need the Union in the first place. They chose to do neither for reasons of their own. It's not politics, it's business and economics.

I happen to know a lot about the Churchill Truck lines affair because of my friend. Care to guess what percentage of the employees didn't actually do any work thanks to the "work rules" the union imposed?

There are two major Beer Mfgs in the US and Canada; Coors and Anheuser-Busch. Coors is non union while Bush is Union. The Union has been trying to break into Coors for many decades. They fail because Coors pays their workers better than the Union Workers, has better benefits than any union can provide and the employee loyalty to Coors is just out of sight. So don't give me that crap about the evil union kills business. Unions are neither good nor bad. You use the threat of the Union to get fair treatment. If you can't get it then you need a union. If it breaks the company then the company probably shouldn't have been in business in the first place. Case in point; the company most in need of a friggin union is Walmart.

For hire independently always pays better than union fuck ups

 

[Rustic]

Then why would you care if I carried my gun?

After you read the truth you came up with all kinds of other ramifications of fires. Well......we could do the same with CCW carriers. After all, how many deaths have we stopped including our own?

Because gun nuts rarely have more training than that 3 or 4 hour course, and your lack of training could make me dead.

Your assertion is laughable at best. True gun enthusiasts are far more competent with firearms than cops are. That is shown whenever there is a competition. The cops with very few exceptions, almost always lose.

The results of any competition have no bearing on the comparative skills of the average gun nut or the average cop. Preparation for competition makes them different from the average.

Incorrect. One of the oldest adages in the military is "you fight the way you train".

The average gun nut doesn't do much training for that type situation. Even if they are an avid hunter and go to the gun range regularly, which most don't, that isn't training for a confrontational situation.

Marksmanship is like riding a bike… Start off young as possible and it’s always there.

 

[Rustic]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

Firearm confiscation from law-abiding citizens will not stop any crime anywhere... That’s common sense

 

[Rustic]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

You carry because you are a pussy

My 88 year old mother has no desire to carry a weapon when she goes out

Lol
Says a pussy whipped bitch

 

[Rustic]

I support the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and carry arms 100%, but it does strike me as a little spineless if someone is too frightened to step foot outside if not packing.
Someone around here has gone so far as to say he’s too scared to go get his mail without a gun. That’s all the way to chickenshitville.

Lol
Whether anyone carries or not it’s no one else’s business whatsoever and certainly none of the federal governments business. Firearm ownership is as personal as it gets... Why do you want to get yourself involved in the most personal of peoples lives?

 

[Rustic]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

The whole good guy with a gun thing misunderstood

What you fail to understand is that no civilian has the obligation to stop a crime.

Shit the fucking cops don't have to respond to a call from a citizen

A good guy with a gun commits no crime with his gun or without therefore law abiding people who own and carry guns are not a factor in crime and murder stats

Gun nuts and the NRA consider an armed thug on the way to his first armed robbery to be a good guy with a gun right up until the second he robs the store.

At Best... projection

 

[Rustic]

I support the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and carry arms 100%, but it does strike me as a little spineless if someone is too frightened to step foot outside if not packing.
Someone around here has gone so far as to say he’s too scared to go get his mail without a gun. That’s all the way to chickenshitville.

You will see more and more carry. And when the dust clears, the chickenshits will still be alive while those macho brown shirts and bad guys will be dead. Confucious say.....gun beats the perp trying to do the beat down.

Confucious say......Dumb ass gun nuts are just as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person. Since cops can't tell a dumb ass gun nut from the bad guy, they might take him out too. Dumb ass gun nuts are dumb asses to play cops and robbers.

Lol
Says someone that depends on the federal government

 

[Rustic]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

The whole good guy with a gun thing misunderstood

What you fail to understand is that no civilian has the obligation to stop a crime.

Shit the fucking cops don't have to respond to a call from a citizen

A good guy with a gun commits no crime with his gun or without therefore law abiding people who own and carry guns are not a factor in crime and murder stats

Gun nuts and the NRA consider an armed thug on the way to his first armed robbery to be a good guy with a gun right up until the second he robs the store.

That's a flawed argument

I could argue you are a drunk driver in waiting so should I suspend your drivers licence today?
I could argue that you are an abusive parent in waiting so should I call DCF to have your kids taken away?

If I have a history of breaking driving laws, I should not be allowed to drive. Thankfully, they have a universal background check for that before my license is issued. We should have a universal check before a gun can be legally bought.

Lol
Vehicle ownership is not a right, firearm ownership is a right Don’t be a fucking moron

 

[Rustic]

You will see more and more carry. And when the dust clears, the chickenshits will still be alive while those macho brown shirts and bad guys will be dead. Confucious say.....gun beats the perp trying to do the beat down.

Confucious say......Dumb ass gun nuts are just as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person. Since cops can't tell a dumb ass gun nut from the bad guy, they might take him out too. Dumb ass gun nuts are dumb asses to play cops and robbers.

/----/ Using your logic - if you drive a car and if you drink alcohol the presumption is you are a drunk driver and must be tossed in jail.

No. If you have a history of breaking driving laws, you should not be allowed to legally drive. If you have a history of being a thug, you should not be able to legally buy a gun. We only do background checks for drivers, not gun purchasers.

Every single gun purchase I ever made was subject to a background check
My CC permit was subject to a background check

Come on down to Texas. You can legally buy a truck load of guns, and nobody even has to ask your name. Federal law allows that.

Lol
People’s personal lives aree none of your business, it don’t get no more personal than firearm ownership so shut the fuck up you silly little fucker

 

[Rustic]

You will see more and more carry. And when the dust clears, the chickenshits will still be alive while those macho brown shirts and bad guys will be dead. Confucious say.....gun beats the perp trying to do the beat down.

Confucious say......Dumb ass gun nuts are just as likely to shoot themselves or an innocent person. Since cops can't tell a dumb ass gun nut from the bad guy, they might take him out too. Dumb ass gun nuts are dumb asses to play cops and robbers.

/----/ Using your logic - if you drive a car and if you drink alcohol the presumption is you are a drunk driver and must be tossed in jail.

No. If you have a history of breaking driving laws, you should not be allowed to legally drive. If you have a history of being a thug, you should not be able to legally buy a gun. We only do background checks for drivers, not gun purchasers.

Stop backpedaling

You said a person is a "good guy" right up until they commit a crime

So that applies to you too and you should have your rights curbed because it's only a matter of time before you commit a crime

No. I said gun nuts and the NRA consider those thugs to be a good guy. A thug is a thug. We need background checks to point that out to gun sellers.

We already have background checks on every firearm that purchased in a retail store, Personal sales are just that, personal none of your fucking business and certainly none of the federal government’s business