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

[ChrisL]

LEGAL gun owners are not the ones out there committing most of the murders. Does it happen occasionally? Of course! But notice that these people will ignore the biggest problem in our society which is NOT honest and legal gun owners, but inner city black on black crime. This is why our homicide rates are SO high. We have a GANG problem and a CRIME problem. This only bolsters the fact that honest citizens need guns for protection, since no one seems to be willing to acknowledge or do anything about the gang and crime problem that exists in our inner cities.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

"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. "

Look at automobile accidents. Your logic applies to that as well. Wanna ban cars too? Are cars the problem, or irresponsible drivers?

It's just a few days past the one year anniversary of the SXSW Tragedy. Four killed, 20+ injured, when Rashad Owens intentionally drove his Honda through the crowded SXSW event in Austin, Texas...

Time to ban cars and black people.

Well, if these anti gunners were so concerned about people and death, they would want to ban swimming and vehicles, which are NOT necessities nor rights, and kill many more people every year.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

How so? Don't just make stupid statements. Explain yourself. What I stated is absolutely true.

 

[2aguy]

Here is another "gun grabber"

Adolphus Busch IV is trying to tell you something. Something that only an insider can provide. Only someone who KNOWS what the NRA is REALLY all about.

But the parrots will disregard this information and continue to believe the NRA cares about the American people.

Budweiser heir Adolphus Busch IV resigns NRA membership



ST. LOUIS (KSDK) - One day after the U.S. Senate rejected a bill that would have expanded background checks on guns, one of St. Louis' most powerful and staunch supporters of gun rights ended his lifetime membership with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch, who also dropped his NRA membership. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

Busch joined the pro-gun organization in 1975 and has spoken before of his love of hunting. But the NRA has moved in a direction that Busch would not follow. "One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners," he wrote.

And I am sure that if his family is ever in trouble.....he will have no problem getting a gun that he needs...and is protected by the NRA.....too much money...too little sense.....

 

[ChrisL]

MISSOURIAN SAID:

“This is part of the problem gun grabbers are facing.”

There is no such thing as a 'gun-grabber,' the notion is ridiculous and unfounded, the contrivance of demagogues.

Yes there is. You are denying that people would not like to see the American public disarmed?

 

[ChrisL]

Criminals and gangs are going to get weapons regardless of your laws. The only people that laws restrict are the people who already follow the laws.

This is WHY we call those people CRIMINALS. Because they don't obey LAWS.

 

[pismoe]

a little video for Bfrgn , well mostly to prove a statement that he made to be wrong . --- ---

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

a little video for Bfrgn , well mostly to prove a statement that he made to be wrong . --- ---

Kinda puts kibosh on all those liberals claiming no one wants to take your guns.

 

[Missourian]

Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.

Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.

Herein lies your problem. We don't trust you. (Not you personally mind you)

No politician has proposed an outright ban YET...mostly because it is a political loser.

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

 

[Bfgrn]

I guess America is infested with "gun grabbers"...

 

[Bfgrn]

Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.

Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.

Herein lies your problem. We don't trust you. (Not you personally mind you)

No politician has proposed an outright ban YET...mostly because it is a political loser.

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

President Obama proposed reasonable changes to gun laws. Reasonable people accept reasonable. Un- reasonable people don't.

 

[Iceweasel]

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

A guy selling a gun isn't a loophole. You never stated how many gun show buys are used in crimes for obvious reasons and no one is suggesting owning any weapon they want.

Fail.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Every gun sale should require a background check IMO. But what the gun show loophole allows is dealers who POSE as 'private' sellers to set up a booth at gun shows and sell weapons without a background check. If the 'private' seller suspects the buyer is a criminal, he is supposed to terminate the sale. Undercover buyers/investigators with hidden cameras went to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

I'm not buying it. If you are making a business of selling guns and not reporting the income the IRS is going to be all over it. I can sell a gun to my neighbor, it isn't the government's business. I have no way of doing a check or knowing who would pass a check for whatever reasons and likely those gun sellers didn't either.

I could sell a car to a habitual drunk and he could kill someone too.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn' and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

 

[Missourian]

Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.

Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.

Herein lies your problem. We don't trust you. (Not you personally mind you)

No politician has proposed an outright ban YET...mostly because it is a political loser.

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

President Obama proposed reasonable changes to gun laws. Reasonable people accept reasonable. Un- reasonable people don't.

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

 

[Iceweasel]

John Lott is a lying scum bag paid for by gun manufacturers.

Prove it.

 

[Bfgrn]

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

A guy selling a gun isn't a loophole. You never stated how many gun show buys are used in crimes for obvious reasons and no one is suggesting owning any weapon they want.

Fail.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Every gun sale should require a background check IMO. But what the gun show loophole allows is dealers who POSE as 'private' sellers to set up a booth at gun shows and sell weapons without a background check. If the 'private' seller suspects the buyer is a criminal, he is supposed to terminate the sale. Undercover buyers/investigators with hidden cameras went to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

I'm not buying it. If you are making a business of selling guns and not reporting the income the IRS is going to be all over it. I can sell a gun to my neighbor, it isn't the government's business. I have no way of doing a check or knowing who would pass a check for whatever reasons and likely those gun sellers didn't either.

I could sell a car to a habitual drunk and he could kill someone too.

WHAT don't you understand about...
Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

Nice sounding analogy but most adults need a car but hardly anyone really needs a gun. And for the irrational and lazy, guns are too easy an out for solving a temporary problem.

 

[Iceweasel]

Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn' and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

 

[Iceweasel]

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

A guy selling a gun isn't a loophole. You never stated how many gun show buys are used in crimes for obvious reasons and no one is suggesting owning any weapon they want.

Fail.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Every gun sale should require a background check IMO. But what the gun show loophole allows is dealers who POSE as 'private' sellers to set up a booth at gun shows and sell weapons without a background check. If the 'private' seller suspects the buyer is a criminal, he is supposed to terminate the sale. Undercover buyers/investigators with hidden cameras went to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

I'm not buying it. If you are making a business of selling guns and not reporting the income the IRS is going to be all over it. I can sell a gun to my neighbor, it isn't the government's business. I have no way of doing a check or knowing who would pass a check for whatever reasons and likely those gun sellers didn't either.

I could sell a car to a habitual drunk and he could kill someone too.

WHAT don't you understand about...
Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Read my post again before re-puking your opinion.

 

[2aguy]

I guess America is infested with "gun grabbers"...

See......as was pointed out above...we don't trust you...why...because we know how you think and what you want....

Those polls showing people in favor of "universal background checks" are based on lies.....they ask the question.. do you support universal background checks for transfers of guns.....and of course, people who pay no attention to the issue in their daily lives, who just hear about the issue from democrats in the media, and who never ask for clarification of the issue....say yes.....

Now....ask the real question...

"Do you support universal background checks if it means you can't give a family member a gun as a gift, even if you know they are not a felon, without paying a gun store a fee to do a background check......do you support UBCs if it means that if both you and your wife have concealed carry permits...and you buy a gun....you cannot lend that gun to your wife, or let her carry that gun without going to a licensed firearm dealer and doing a background check on her.....do you support background checks if it means that if your freind, who is not a felon, is going hunting and would like to try out your new shotgun...that you have to get a background check and pay for it to lend him that shotgun"

Ask that question again....and see what the real poll number is......

 

[2aguy]

Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.

Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.

Herein lies your problem. We don't trust you. (Not you personally mind you)

No politician has proposed an outright ban YET...mostly because it is a political loser.

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

President Obama proposed reasonable changes to gun laws. Reasonable people accept reasonable. Un- reasonable people don't.

When obama and John Lott were at the University of chicago, obama told Lott that people should not have guns.....obama is a gun grabber...