Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[pismoe]

your whole system will be affected though !!

 

[ChrisL]

your whole system will be affected though !!

Sure, but it's not like the whole world would care, nor would the government be affected.

 

[LOki]

This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......

Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns

We’ve noted for a while now how nasty the forces of civilian disarmament have become in recent years. Since their failure to significantly move the anti-gun needle after Newtown — an opportunity they saw as a sure thing for rolling back Second Amendment rights — the gun-grabbing community seems to have ratcheted up (or down, really) the venom and vulgarity. One of our readers, Ozallos, posited the following theory under our post, ‘Why Are Anti-Gunners So Vile? – ConcealedNation.org Reads Their Hate Mail’ . . .

Ok, here’s the deal. You own a gun. They don’t. Or by their very ethos can’t. You have taken the responsibility of security upon yourself and are secure in that fact. Again, they aren’t. You’re a threat to the philosophy they believe in and there are very few ways they have in order to express that frustration. First, they must have somebody else take your guns. Empowering somebody else with guns to take your guns is hypocritical at its very core, but seen as a necessary evil . . .

The ends justify the means and if a few eggs need to be broken, /shrug. You need to burn the village idiot to save him or something.

Angry people aren't thinking clearly. If they were, they'd no more blame firearms for violence than they do cars for drunk driving accidents.

It is a little more complicated than that....don't ya THINK?

No not really. Look at how many ugn owners there are vs how many incidents of gun violence. If guns correlated to incidents of gun violence we'd have far more incidents than we do.

Criminals account for gun violence, not law-abidding gun owners.

And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Except for this,

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some darkalley. ​

everything you posted is patent dis-information.

There's a reason the anti-rights advocate such as yourself cannot manage to present a rational point... you don't have one.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have never bought a gun when I was not required to pass a background check

WTF are these libs yammering about?

Guess you never went to a gun show in a state that allows guns sold without background checks.

Americans for Responsible Solutions POLITICO Closing gun show loophole is right way to go - Americans for Responsible Solutions

 

[Bfgrn]

This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......

Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns

We’ve noted for a while now how nasty the forces of civilian disarmament have become in recent years. Since their failure to significantly move the anti-gun needle after Newtown — an opportunity they saw as a sure thing for rolling back Second Amendment rights — the gun-grabbing community seems to have ratcheted up (or down, really) the venom and vulgarity. One of our readers, Ozallos, posited the following theory under our post, ‘Why Are Anti-Gunners So Vile? – ConcealedNation.org Reads Their Hate Mail’ . . .

Ok, here’s the deal. You own a gun. They don’t. Or by their very ethos can’t. You have taken the responsibility of security upon yourself and are secure in that fact. Again, they aren’t. You’re a threat to the philosophy they believe in and there are very few ways they have in order to express that frustration. First, they must have somebody else take your guns. Empowering somebody else with guns to take your guns is hypocritical at its very core, but seen as a necessary evil . . .

The ends justify the means and if a few eggs need to be broken, /shrug. You need to burn the village idiot to save him or something.

Angry people aren't thinking clearly. If they were, they'd no more blame firearms for violence than they do cars for drunk driving accidents.

It is a little more complicated than that....don't ya THINK?

No not really. Look at how many ugn owners there are vs how many incidents of gun violence. If guns correlated to incidents of gun violence we'd have far more incidents than we do.

Criminals account for gun violence, not law-abidding gun owners.

And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Except for this,

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some darkalley. ​

everything you posted is patent dis-information.

There's a reason the anti-rights advocate such as yourself cannot manage to present a rational point... you don't have one.

WOW, you sure made a strong case...

 

[Spinster]

On the one hand, I don't object to a background check when purchasing guns if we have nothing to hide. On the other, however, I don't agree with government's involvement into our right to bear arms. Have a friend who experienced Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome as a result of fulfilling his military duty for our country. Now he can't pass a background check solely as a result of his diagnosis. He's not a threat to others, but if he wanted to harm/do away with himself I don't see the reason for government intervention. In my mind, we are so extremely careful about not trodding on another's Right To Choose, yet in the fore mentioned example it is denied this individual. Isn't that a double standard?

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

Sorry, but that is not true. Cho killed more, they were adults AND he didn't use a rifle at all. Lanza had two pistols just like Cho AND many of Lanza's magazines were discarded after only using 15 rounds,

P.S. - the modern sporting rifle that you mis-attributed as an assault rifle has the same "rate of fire" as every other semi-automatic...one round per trigger pull.






I wish you guys/gals would do you homework, gain an understanding of firearms, instead of this knee-jerk reactionary stuff.

And I'm not saying that to be mean. Take a day at the range and shoot an AR-15, and a Glock, and a .38 special. Find out what it is you are talking about.

Hell, I'll take you if you live near me.

I have fired many weapons, including semi-automatic pistols.

The similarity between an assault rifle and a semi automatic handgun end at rate of fire.
Most assault rifles were designed to be effective up to 450 yards. Most handguns are accurate only up to about twenty-five yards. Rifle rounds have twice the velocity and four times the muzzle energy of handgun rounds.

Are you being dishonest or obtuse?

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

 

[Bfgrn]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Sorry....any gun sold over the internet that goes across state lines must be processed through a FFL......it is against the law otherwise.....

Background checks, the ones we have now stop law abiding citizens more than any criminals....criminals simply use people who can pass a background check to get their guns...or they steal them.....

You are a plethora of misinformation and stating the absurd...

Who in their right mind would buy a gun for someone who can't pass a background check???

Straw Purchaser Gets 8 Years in Prison

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

Sorry, but that is not true. Cho killed more, they were adults AND he didn't use a rifle at all. Lanza had two pistols just like Cho AND many of Lanza's magazines were discarded after only using 15 rounds,

P.S. - the modern sporting rifle that you mis-attributed as an assault rifle has the same "rate of fire" as every other semi-automatic...one round per trigger pull.






I wish you guys/gals would do you homework, gain an understanding of firearms, instead of this knee-jerk reactionary stuff.

And I'm not saying that to be mean. Take a day at the range and shoot an AR-15, and a Glock, and a .38 special. Find out what it is you are talking about.

Hell, I'll take you if you live near me.

Beyond ironic...

Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken

 

[LOki]

Angry people aren't thinking clearly. If they were, they'd no more blame firearms for violence than they do cars for drunk driving accidents.

It is a little more complicated than that....don't ya THINK?

No not really. Look at how many ugn owners there are vs how many incidents of gun violence. If guns correlated to incidents of gun violence we'd have far more incidents than we do.

Criminals account for gun violence, not law-abidding gun owners.

And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Except for this,

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some darkalley. ​

everything you posted is patent dis-information.

There's a reason the anti-rights advocate such as yourself cannot manage to present a rational point... you don't have one.

WOW, you sure made a strong case...

We both know it, in spite of your fatuous use of emoticons.

Background checks and "assault-weapons" bans do not stop black market gun transactions, and do not prevent violent sociopaths from obtaining guns.

For OBVIOUS reasons.

Background checks and AWBs are effective in their designed purposes: to be a barrier to the acquisition of guns by law abiding citizens., to put law abiding folks at a disadvantage when confronted by criminal violence, and to strengthen the black market transactions for gun acquisition.

The question is, what possible problem do anti-rights proponents have with law-abiding citizens openly and freely acquiring guns?

Another question: Why do anti-rights proponents prefer that law abiding citizens be at a tactical disadvantage to violent sociopaths?

 

[The Rabbi]

I have never bought a gun when I was not required to pass a background check

WTF are these libs yammering about?

Guess you never went to a gun show in a state that allows guns sold without background checks.

Americans for Responsible Solutions POLITICO Closing gun show loophole is right way to go - Americans for Responsible Solutions

There is no "gun show loophole." It is another lib talking point divorced from reality. Like "hands up dont shoot" Total fabrication. Only rubes like you fall for it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.

I've had a gun pointed at me and it is too late at that point but it's dim to believe that's the only scenario people face in life. If I'm roused out of my sleep and someone is in my home then they aren't going home. And you would do what for defense? Pee? Cry? Beg?

 

[Bfgrn]

It is a little more complicated than that....don't ya THINK?

No not really. Look at how many ugn owners there are vs how many incidents of gun violence. If guns correlated to incidents of gun violence we'd have far more incidents than we do.

Criminals account for gun violence, not law-abidding gun owners.

And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Except for this,

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some darkalley. ​

everything you posted is patent dis-information.

There's a reason the anti-rights advocate such as yourself cannot manage to present a rational point... you don't have one.

WOW, you sure made a strong case...

We both know it, in spite of your fatuous use of emoticons.

Background checks and "assault-weapons" bans do not stop black market gun transactions, and do not prevent violent sociopaths from obtaining guns.

For OBVIOUS reasons.

Background checks and AWBs are effective in their designed purposes: to be a barrier to the acquisition of guns by law abiding citizens., to put law abiding folks at a disadvantage when confronted by criminal violence, and to strengthen the black market transactions for gun acquisition.

The question is, what possible problem do anti-rights proponents have with law-abiding citizens openly and freely acquiring guns?

Another question: Why do anti-rights proponents prefer that law abiding citizens be at a tactical disadvantage to violent sociopaths?

Talk about 'emotions'...the most powerful 'emotion' is FEAR. The right wing mind is infested and overwhelmingly controlled by fear...Your need to create 'monsters of the mind' is a dead giveaway...

And you are full of shit...

Closing gun show loophole is right way to go

The NRA is calling on legislators to make it easier, instead of harder, for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to get guns.

You read that right. Not harder, easier. Which isn’t what the more than 74 percent of NRA members in this country who are law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners, as Gabby and I are, and who support expanding background checks, believe.

Making the system of background checks fair and consistent isn’t hard to understand. If you don’t think there should be two different sets of rules, leveling the playing field and expanding the effective National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the way to go. For the same reasons we don’t make getting screened for bombs or weapons at the airport optional, or registering your car something you only have to do if you want to, having a giant loophole in the background check system just doesn’t make sense.

But it’s clear that for reasons of their own, the NRA leadership has decided to dig in and — against all evidence and common sense — preserve a system that makes it easier for criminals to get guns.
Here are the facts:

Criminals and the mentally ill do submit to background checks — and any effort to convince you otherwise is flat out wrong. We know roughly 1.7 million criminals and mentally ill people have been stopped from buying a gun by a background check since 1999. What we don’t know is how many of them got a gun anyway at a gun show or different private sale.

Criminals use the gun show and private sales loophole to get their guns, and then they use them to kill and injure. Eighty percent of criminals who committed a crime with a gun said they got their gun through a private transfer with no background check.

Background checks are easy and fast. When I bought a hunting rifle at a Walmart in November, my instant background check took less than five minutes; 91 percent of checks are instantaneous.

An extension of the current background check system cannot by law or by practice result in a registry of guns or gun owners. Such a registry is against the law, and the federal government does not even collect the records that would constitute a registry.

The reality is that closing the gun-show loophole and expanding a simple system that works will respect, not encroach, on our Second Amendment rights. Ninety-one percent of background checks are completed instantaneously and records are kept by the folks who run them, not by the government. And we’re not looking to limit private transfers — proposed legislation should and will take into account transfers between family members, for example, and the needs of citizens in rural locations.

The NRA leadership and others are right to identify some systematic challenges we face in expanding the NICS background system — like streamlining the records process, and prosecuting more of the criminals who do try to buy a gun — but they are flat out wrong to use those operational challenges as a reason to say no to a simple universal background check.

As a former astronaut, I’ve got a pretty seasoned perspective on operational challenges. When something breaks on the space shuttle, the crew doesn’t throw up their hands and decide to go to the golf course instead of the International Space Station. We roll up our sleeves and figure out how to make it work. That means having the perseverance to find solutions, to look closely at systems that aren’t working, so that we achieve new heights of accomplishments. And working on complicated solutions means having a straightforward grasp of the facts and a willingness to find common purpose with others, no matter how diverse the team is.

That’s the approach Gabby took to Congress, too, and it’s a quintessentially American approach we all ought to take as we work to protect the safety of our communities. Background checks protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, and they serve a patriotic purpose: making sure that we have one system for those who want to purchase a firearm, not two: one for those desperate to avoid detection and bent on violence, and one for the rest of us.

Capt. Mark Kelly served in the U.S. Navy for 25 years, flew combat missions during Operation Desert Storm and was the final commander of the Space Shuttle Endeavor. With his wife, former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, he is the co-founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions.

 

[pismoe]

mark Kelly is just the current BRADY , a statist in uniform . His uniform impresses some people I guess . He has found a way to make a few bucks based on a personal situation !!

 

[Bfgrn]

mark Kelly is just the current BRADY , a statist in uniform . His uniform impresses some people I guess . He has found a way to make a few bucks based on a personal situation !!

Your comments only reveal YOUR character, not Mark Kelly's...

 

[pismoe]

mark Kelly is the one lacking in character , a statist in uniform . He is simply one of the kings men doing the kings / govs business of disarming Ameicans and making money off what happened to his wife . Simply a new team Brady but reversed in roles Bfg !!

 

[pismoe]

--- mark Kelly bio --- a statist from a family of statists . He is a gun controller . --- Astronaut Bio Mark Kelly 7 2011 --- there you BFG , Now on your knees !!

 

[Bfgrn]

--- mark Kelly bio --- a statist from a family of statists . He is a gun controller . --- Astronaut Bio Mark Kelly 7 2011 --- there you BFG , Now on your knees !!

Does mommy know you are on her computer?

 

[Bfgrn]

--- mark Kelly bio --- a statist from a family of statists . He is a gun controller . --- Astronaut Bio Mark Kelly 7 2011 --- there you BFG , Now on your knees !!

WOW, what an anti-American piece of shit Kelly is...

Mark E. Kelly (CAPTAIN, USN)
NASA Astronaut

PERSONAL DATA: Mark Edward Kelly is the son of Richard and Patricia Kelly, two retired police officers. He was born in Orange, New Jersey, on February 21, 1964, and raised in West Orange, New Jersey. Kelly is married to U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Kelly’s identical twin brother, Scott J. Kelly, is also an astronaut and served as commander of International Space Station (ISS) Expedition 26. The Kelly brothers are the only siblings who have both traveled in space.

EDUCATION: Kelly graduated from Mountain High School in 1982. He received a B.S. degree in marine engineering and nautical science from the United States Merchant Marine Academy, graduating with highest honors in 1986. In 1994, he received an M.S. degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.

AWARDS: Defense Superior Service Medal (with one bronze oak leaf cluster); Distinguished Flying Cross; Air Medal (with valor device and three bronze service stars); Navy Commendation Medal (with valor device and one bronze service star); Navy Achievement Medal; Southwest Asia Service Medal (with one bronze service star); Navy Expeditionary Medal; National Defense Service Medal (with one bronze service star); Navy Unit Commendation (with one bronze service star); Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (with one bronze service star); Overseas Service Ribbon; Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia); Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait); NASA Exceptional Service Medal; NASA Space Flight Medal (with three bronze service stars).

EXPERIENCE: In December 1987, Kelly became a naval aviator and received initial training on the A-6E Intruder attack aircraft. He was then assigned to VA-115 (Attack Squadron 115) in Atsugi, Japan, and made two deployments to the Persian Gulf on the aircraft carrier USS Midway, flying 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm. After receiving his master’s degree, he attended the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School from June 1993 to June 1994. He has logged more than 5,000 hours in more than 50 different aircraft and has over 375 carrier landings.

At this time, Kelly remains on active duty. He is on loan to NASA and holds the rank of Captain in the U.S. Navy.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2011, Kelly announced his retirement from the U.S. Navy, and NASA, effective October 1, 2011.

 

[pismoe]

hey , like I said , he is a statist and a gun controller , taxpayers paid his and his families / parents wages for his entire life I suppose . He is a kings man with latest goal of Disarming Americans using his wife as a prop !! You and others can worship him if you like but I have no use for him BFG !! Brady gang reduced to one member that is losing steam so replacement is needed , 'ta da' meet the Kellys !!