What right does he have to demand I lose my rights?

[HelenaHandbag]

[
If you're SOOOOOO genuinely ASHAMED of our founding fathers and this nations history, then WHAT IN THE FLYING FUCK ARE YOU DOING LIVING HERE?

Get the fuck out ya pathetic COMMIE.

Because of some of the things that happened AFTER the Founding Slave Rapists.

Because we had guys like Lincoln and FDR and JFK and Ike and Teddy Roosevelt, who kept the promises of guys who talked about freedom and then wrote a constitution that said blacks were 3/5th of a white man.

But i don't get all misty eyed because the founding slave rapists saved us from being 'Canadians".

You have not the vaguest idea about the 3/5 compromise, do you?

Figures that you would be equally as ill-informed about the 2nd Amendment or anything else having to do with the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

[

Those countries are different than the US. You need more to the argument than that they have gun laws and they have fewer murders, ergo, gun laws work. You have the mind of a child.

And you never did have an answer to the question that kids can get all the pot they want, how are we going to keep guns out.

Here's a tip, arrogance isn't an argument. And you way, way overrate your pedestrian intelligence.

Here's the major difference.

The kids can get all the pot they want, but they aren't going to accidently kill me with a joint.

Talk about missing the point. The point is not the implication of getting pot, the point is the inability of the government to stop it.

Very easy to get the guns out.

1) Make them illegal.
2) Offer big rewards to people who rat out their neighbors who don't turn them in.
3) Make very big splashy arrests of the few assholes who miss the point.

Problem solved.

So people who are going to shoot people with illegal guns will be dissuaded for being punished for using a gun, punishing them for shooting someone won't do the job, but punishing them for having a gun will.

Again...



One more time...



Mkay, thanks for that contribution to the discussion, I get it now.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No gun, I guess he could have came at Reagan with a knife or an ax. And the Secret Service would have tackled his ass so fast it wouldn't have been funny.

Or he could have bought an illegal gun...

Here's the problem with you gun nuts. You have to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.

The other G-7 nations either ban private gun ownership or severely restrict who can have a gun.

So you run the gamit of Japan, where they had all of 11 gun murders in 2010, to Germany, where they had about 250 gun murders.

Now, Germany doesn't ban guns altogether, but they put strict limits on WHO can have guns and what kind of guns they can have. And despite there being 17 million guns for 80 million Germans, they don't have that much gun violence.

Yes. Gun control works.

When it's actually tried.

Those countries are different than the US. You need more to the argument than that they have gun laws and they have fewer murders, ergo, gun laws work. You have the mind of a child.
.

And I'll bet he was glad to get rid of it.

 

[kaz]

Hold gun manufacturers responsible for the deaths their guns cause.

Then you'll see them making damn sure they aren't marketting to people who shouldn't have them.

Yes, and we should hold car companies responsible for deaths caused by automobiles and electric power companies responsible for electrocutions and then we won't have any companies left. Which doesn't matter to you Marxists.

What we will still have however is guns. Criminals will buy illegal ones. I mean duh.

Are cars being specifically designed to kill people?

That's the purpose of a gun. They are designed for nothing else. OH a few hunting rifles are designed to kill animals, but most are designed to kill people.

So when a crazy person uses a product FOR THE PURPOSE IT WAS DESIGNED FOR, then they should be held accountable when the wrong people get them, doncha think?

Non-military guns are designed for collecting, sporting, hunting, defense and a lot of purposes, none of which involve killing people. In this country, while military weapons when used are designed to kill people, their primary purpose is to not be used to save lives for defensive purposes. So since we're talking about this country, no, guns are not designed to kill people. They are capable of it, just like an automobile is. But that is not what they are created for. And that makes automobiles a perfect analogy. so should we ban cars?

The purpose of live is to live, the purpose of life is not to just not die. You can live it in fear of scary guns you don't understand, but you're fooling yourself. They are there anyway and all you're advocating is continuing to disarm the good guys.

 

[The T]

[
If you're SOOOOOO genuinely ASHAMED of our founding fathers and this nations history, then WHAT IN THE FLYING FUCK ARE YOU DOING LIVING HERE?

Get the fuck out ya pathetic COMMIE.

Because of some of the things that happened AFTER the Founding Slave Rapists.

Because we had guys like Lincoln and FDR and JFK and Ike and Teddy Roosevelt, who kept the promises of guys who talked about freedom and then wrote a constitution that said blacks were 3/5th of a white man.

But i don't get all misty eyed because the founding slave rapists saved us from being 'Canadians".

The Three-Fifths Compromise outlined the process for states to count slaves as part of the population in order to determine representation and taxation for the federal government. The southern states wanted to count all slaves toward the population for representation purposes, but did not want to be taxed on the slaves because they considered them property. The northern states did not want all the slaves counted toward population because that would take representation away from the North...

While drafting the constitution in 1787, the Founding Fathers understood that there had to be a decision on slavery and representation if they were to change the tax code. The decision to count three out of five slaves as members of the population greatly benefited the southern states. Prior to slaves counting toward the population, the southern states occupied 38% of the seats in the House. After slaves were counted, southern states' representation in the House went up to 45% in 1790.

The Three-Fifths Compromise: Definition, Summary & Quiz | Education Portal

HOW could non-free people be counted? BTW? The South was largely Democrat...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

Not to mention that Joe keeps thinking that we can stop criminals from getting guns by making it illegal for criminals to get guns because, you know, criminals follow the law, right Joe? A ... criminal ... wouldn't break the law and buy a gun when that's illegal.

So Joe, anyway guy, have you ever looked up the definition of the word "criminal?" It might be eye opening for you...

A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one.

No guns. NO crooks with guns.

It's pretty effin' simple.

LOL, you're a simpleton.

And you’re easily hooked, like most others on the right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one.

No guns. NO crooks with guns.

It's pretty effin' simple.

LOL, you're a simpleton.

And you’re easily hooked, like most others on the right.

Remind us again how no politician has ever suggested or tried to get passed a law banning all ownership of firearms. I mean you did claim no one ever suggested it.

 

[kaz]

A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one.

No guns. NO crooks with guns.

It's pretty effin' simple.

LOL, you're a simpleton.

And you’re easily hooked, like most others on the right.

Which you proved by cutting out my argument? You're the simpleton.

So seriously, you're with Joe that criminals can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells them one? Criminals can't get guns and sell them to each other? I listed three pretty simple ways they can do that. Steal them, smuggle them in like drugs. Make them.

But you think that can't happen, and "I" am the simpleton. LOL.

Oh yeah, and duh, dar, I'm for legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion and other vices and against the use of our military for overseas wars. But duh, dar, that's still a conservative because I don't want don't want to redistribute money. LOL, again, the simpleton is thee.

 

[JoeB131]

[quo

LOL, you're a simpleton.

Criminals can't buy stolen guns, guy?

They can't buy guns smuggled into the country? You know, the open borders Democrats work to make sure illegal aliens can walk across? Did you ever thing guns could come in the same way? The planes and ships drug smugglers bring tons of drugs in on?

And guns can't be made illegally here? They aren't rocket science.

You're so thick it's hilarious. So high schoolers can't get pot unless someone legal sells them one, can they guy?

I have to run that buy again...

"A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one"

OMG,

Guy, you do get that the Australian, British, Germans, Japanese, French and every other advanced country banned guns and made it mostly stick, right?

Stop making guns, stop letting people have them if they don't really need them and strictly enforce the law. It's really not complicated.

Big difference between pot and guns.

No one's going to go into your kids school and kill him with a joint.

 

[kaz]

[quo

LOL, you're a simpleton.

Criminals can't buy stolen guns, guy?

They can't buy guns smuggled into the country? You know, the open borders Democrats work to make sure illegal aliens can walk across? Did you ever thing guns could come in the same way? The planes and ships drug smugglers bring tons of drugs in on?

And guns can't be made illegally here? They aren't rocket science.

You're so thick it's hilarious. So high schoolers can't get pot unless someone legal sells them one, can they guy?

I have to run that buy again...

"A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one"

OMG,

Guy, you do get that the Australian, British, Germans, Japanese, French and every other advanced country banned guns and made it mostly stick, right?

Stop making guns, stop letting people have them if they don't really need them and strictly enforce the law. It's really not complicated.

Because of course criminals follow the law. Well, unless a non-criminal sells them the gun. Again, "Australia" is not an argument. This is not Australia. You have to address what is happening here. We have drugs flowing into this country, drugs are no different. You can't stop it by just saying, "Australia."

Big difference between pot and guns.

No one's going to go into your kids school and kill him with a joint.

Yes, guy, there is a big difference. And the last time you said this I pointed out the irrelvance of your argument. No one said that drugs and guns are the same. What I said is we can't stop people from buying either one. It's called an "analogy." You can Google that to learn what it means. Analogies are situations that are alike in certain respects, they are not identical. I told you the aspect they are alike and you continue to not grasp that but address an aspect no one said they are alike.

What's funny about you is your inability to grasp an argument no matter how simple. And yet how arrogantly you storm about it while you look like a fool.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Talk about missing the point. The point is not the implication of getting pot, the point is the inability of the government to stop it.

No, it's the fact that the people aren't terribly interested in enforcing these laws. No one is turning in his neighbor for a little weed.

So people who are going to shoot people with illegal guns will be dissuaded for being punished for using a gun, punishing them for shooting someone won't do the job, but punishing them for having a gun will.
:

The vast majority of carnage with guns aren't criminals.

It's suicides, accidents and domestic violence over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best. And most of those guns were legally acquired.

The punk who killed those people in california, legally acquired his guns despite being batshit crazy.

NOw, yeah, you can make a gun ban work.

The Japanese did it.
The British Did it.
The Germans did it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
And when are you going to stop passing the buck?

When are you going to stop blaming the gun instead of actually addressing the real problem?

The kid was a full blown nut job, like you. The gun was misused in his twisted little world of narcissism and butt hurt rich boy pussyism.

When are you going to admit the truth that guns aren't the problem, that the crazy bastards that misuse them are?

Uh, not the problem was that someone this deranged was able to get a gun.

His parents knew he was nuts, his three shrinks knew he was nuts, but the gun seller, he was just a "Gold Customer".

If they knew he was nuts why wasn't he ever adjudicated as nuts? Is it because, despite your 20/20 hindsight, they didn't know he was nuts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
With due respect for your concern, one cannot walk into a drug store and buy a deck of heroin either.

If the necessary laws existed to bar Hinckley from buying that pawn shop .22 he would have found a street dealer who might have sold him a .357 -- and that would have been the end of Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady. As alcohol Prohibition and today's wholly counterproductive War On Drugs have plainly demonstrated, bans and prohibitive laws do not work. Whatever people are willing to pay for but cannot buy in the light someone will make available to them in the dark. That applies to guns as well as booze and drugs.

If more restrictive gun laws are passed it will result in more cops, more courts, and more prisons, and the laws will succeed in disarming the responsible gun owner. But you may rest assured the criminals and the crazies will still get all the guns they are willing and able to pay for or steal.

Uh, your argument MIGHT be impressive if there weren't you know, other countries in the world world that DO restrict gun ownership and DO have less crime and have never had a head of state shot.

Will we eliminate every possible gun? Nope. Can we reduce the carnage by limiting who can get them? Yes.

We do limit who can get them. Until you can show me what it is, specifically, that is wrong with the gun laws in California, all you are doing is ranting about a problem that only exist inside your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Not to mention that Joe keeps thinking that we can stop criminals from getting guns by making it illegal for criminals to get guns because, you know, criminals follow the law, right Joe? A ... criminal ... wouldn't break the law and buy a gun when that's illegal.

So Joe, anyway guy, have you ever looked up the definition of the word "criminal?" It might be eye opening for you...

A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one.

No guns. NO crooks with guns.

It's pretty effin' simple.

Criminals never steal guns, or sell guns to other criminals?

 

[JoeB131]

[quo

LOL, you're a simpleton.

Criminals can't buy stolen guns, guy?

They can't buy guns smuggled into the country? You know, the open borders Democrats work to make sure illegal aliens can walk across? Did you ever thing guns could come in the same way? The planes and ships drug smugglers bring tons of drugs in on?

And guns can't be made illegally here? They aren't rocket science.

You're so thick it's hilarious. So high schoolers can't get pot unless someone legal sells them one, can they guy?

I have to run that buy again...

"A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one"

OMG,

Guy, you do get that the Australian, British, Germans, Japanese, French and every other advanced country banned guns and made it mostly stick, right?

Stop making guns, stop letting people have them if they don't really need them and strictly enforce the law. It's really not complicated.

Because of course criminals follow the law. Well, unless a non-criminal sells them the gun. Again, "Australia" is not an argument. This is not Australia. You have to address what is happening here. We have drugs flowing into this country, drugs are no different. You can't stop it by just saying, "Australia."

I am addressing what is happening here.

What is happening here is you've got a gun industry that is pushing for allowing criminals and crazy people easy access to guns so that stupid people like you get all scared and want guns, too.

This is called, "Creating a market". Kind of like when a drug pusher gives away free samples.




[quote/]

Yes, guy, there is a big difference. And the last time you said this I pointed out the irrelvance of your argument. No one said that drugs and guns are the same. What I said is we can't stop people from buying either one. It's called an "analogy." You can Google that to learn what it means. Analogies are situations that are alike in certain respects, they are not identical. I told you the aspect they are alike and you continue to not grasp that but address an aspect no one said they are alike.

What's funny about you is your inability to grasp an argument no matter how simple. And yet how arrogantly you storm about it while you look like a fool.[/quote]

No, they aren't alike at all.

I could care less if you smoke a joint.

I'm VERY CONCERNED that you have a gun.

Mostly because after five minutes of talking with gun nuts, they start fantasizing about all the people they want to shoot.

Other countries have banned guns. And they found life was a lot better when the guns were gone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[quo

LOL, you're a simpleton.

Criminals can't buy stolen guns, guy?

They can't buy guns smuggled into the country? You know, the open borders Democrats work to make sure illegal aliens can walk across? Did you ever thing guns could come in the same way? The planes and ships drug smugglers bring tons of drugs in on?

And guns can't be made illegally here? They aren't rocket science.

You're so thick it's hilarious. So high schoolers can't get pot unless someone legal sells them one, can they guy?

I have to run that buy again...

"A criminal can only get a gun if a non-criminal sells him one"

OMG,

Guy, you do get that the Australian, British, Germans, Japanese, French and every other advanced country banned guns and made it mostly stick, right?

Stop making guns, stop letting people have them if they don't really need them and strictly enforce the law. It's really not complicated.

Big difference between pot and guns.

No one's going to go into your kids school and kill him with a joint.

They did? Are you sure about that?

 

[Antares]

[

Talk about missing the point. The point is not the implication of getting pot, the point is the inability of the government to stop it.

No, it's the fact that the people aren't terribly interested in enforcing these laws. No one is turning in his neighbor for a little weed.

So people who are going to shoot people with illegal guns will be dissuaded for being punished for using a gun, punishing them for shooting someone won't do the job, but punishing them for having a gun will.
:

The vast majority of carnage with guns aren't criminals.

It's suicides, accidents and domestic violence over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best. And most of those guns were legally acquired.

The punk who killed those people in california, legally acquired his guns despite being batshit crazy.

NOw, yeah, you can make a gun ban work.

The Japanese did it.
The British Did it.
The Germans did it.

...and the thing they all have in common is......NO 2nd Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

...and the thing they all have in common is......NO 2nd Amendment.

Scalia takes a Dirt Nap.

The Second Amendment is about militias again.

Or here's an even better one.

Reverse the idiotic law that immunizes gun merchants from the carnage their products cause.

Betcha they get really keen on background checks, then.

 

[Antares]

[q

...and the thing they all have in common is......NO 2nd Amendment.

Scalia takes a Dirt Nap.

The Second Amendment is about militias again.

Or here's an even better one.

Reverse the idiotic law that immunizes gun merchants from the carnage their products cause.

Betcha they get really keen on background checks, then.

(smile) Not happening Joe, that's just your wet dream.

Why don't you try it the right way, get your boy's to call a Constitutional Convention.

 

[MikeK]

[
With due respect for your concern, one cannot walk into a drug store and buy a deck of heroin either.

If the necessary laws existed to bar Hinckley from buying that pawn shop .22 he would have found a street dealer who might have sold him a .357 -- and that would have been the end of Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady. As alcohol Prohibition and today's wholly counterproductive War On Drugs have plainly demonstrated, bans and prohibitive laws do not work. Whatever people are willing to pay for but cannot buy in the light someone will make available to them in the dark. That applies to guns as well as booze and drugs.

If more restrictive gun laws are passed it will result in more cops, more courts, and more prisons, and the laws will succeed in disarming the responsible gun owner. But you may rest assured the criminals and the crazies will still get all the guns they are willing and able to pay for or steal.

Uh, your argument MIGHT be impressive if there weren't you know, other countries in the world world that DO restrict gun ownership and DO have less crime and have never had a head of state shot.

Will we eliminate every possible gun? Nope. Can we reduce the carnage by limiting who can get them? Yes.

Think of those other countries as other cultures, within which many likes, dislikes, habits, and tastes differ substantially from ours. The critical factor is conditioning, and Americans' love of guns is the result of many generations of conditioning.

The American Nation, therefore its culture, was given birth by the gun. The American Rifleman is the graphic symbol of who we are.

Guns are and always have been an essential component of the American culture. At the present time there are so many guns in the hands of Americans it would be impossible to remove them by other than the most abusively aggressive police state methods --- including surprise door-to-door searches of residences and business premises. And the kind of violence such un-Constitutional oppression would provoke would far exceed that which will take place in the natural course of events.

I believe the solution to the problem of mass shootings is more guns -- because the less gun category will not include the criminals and crazies. They will have theirs. But in addition to relaxed gun restrictions there needs to be an intensive public education effort directed at educating armed citizens on proper storage, handling, carrying, and use of their weapons.

The greatest advantage of the illegal gun user is his awareness of the extremely low potential for return fire from armed citizens. Yet the trend seems to be further disarming of responsible citizens.