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

[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.

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.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your criteria...

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!

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes....how long does a rape have to take for it to be a temporary problem? Or a beating, or a stabbing, or a murder......

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your criteria...

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!

Wrong...there is every need.....we may very well need them to stop the government.....so we also need 30 round magazines to go with those rifles.....

And if the military and police have them, then the people who pay their salaries get them as well.....

An AR-15 is a good weapon for personal self defense....large magazine capacity, can hold a light and a lazer, because of the gun grabbers it now has a killer reputation so is intimidating to criminals, and the light round does not penetrate dry wall...which means you will be less likely to hit a neighbor if you are defending yourself....and a rifle has more stopping power than a pistol......

So yes...civilians need them...

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

"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...

Rashad is just a poor, misunderstood, disrespected black man acting out his justifiable black rage.

 

[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.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your criteria...

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!

So, you do want an outright ban, got it.

How exactly would that have averted Newtown?

 

[Bfgrn]

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......

Then you gun owners are stupid people too...

92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your criteria...

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!

So, you do want an outright ban, got it.

How exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Yes, I am for reasonable gun control laws, are you?

 

[pismoe]

see , see what I mean , Bfgrn OR Brian , really makes no difference and their words and thinking is good to see for all to see !! Just like 'Feinstein' she can have a gun but the rabble have no Right . Same thinking by mrobama !!

 

[Missourian]

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.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your criteria...

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!

So, you do want an outright ban, got it.

How exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Yes, I am for reasonable gun control laws, are you?

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

 

[Vandalshandle]

Another thread on non-existent "gun grabbers'. It is always fun to watch paranoids on parade....

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

People like BFGRN think a semi auto AR-15 belongs only on the battle field...because it's scary looking.

It has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with rate of fire, magazine capacity and the carnage it can inflict in a school, movie theater or any public place where citizens peacefully gather.

Of course it has to do with looks. I own a Springfield M1A. By the definition used in Clintion's "assault weapon" ban, it does not qualify as an "assault rifle", despite the fact that it (especially in the shorter formats) is a far better battle rifle than the ARs.

The assault rifle ban used the following criteria:
"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount"

Of the 5 criteria, only one has any actual bearing on the operation of the rifle in a criminal manner, and that is the folding or collapsible stock. This makes the rifle more concealable. The pistol grip is purely cosmetic. The bayonet mount is purely cosmetic (unless you know of any crimes in which a mounted bayonet was used). The flash suppressor is purely cosmetic. And the grenade launcher is not only purely cosmetic, the ability to buy grenades for such a launcher is so strictly regulated as to be unavailable except thru the black market.

 

[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.

Yes....how long does a rape have to take for it to be a temporary problem? Or a beating, or a stabbing, or a murder......

I'm not sure what your logic is, if there is any, but most shootings are by assailants rather than would-be victims.

2015
GUN VIOLENCE ARCHIVE 2015 TOLL OF GUN VIOLENCE

• Total Number of Incidents: 9,226
• Number of Deaths1: 2,575
• Number of Injuries1: 4,373
• Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 120
• Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured1: 448
• Mass Shooting2: 52
• Officer Involved Shooting2: 908
• Home Invasion2: 452
• Defensive Use2: 258
• Accidental Shooting2: 441

Gun Violence Archive

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Another thread on non-existent "gun grabbers'. It is always fun to watch paranoids on parade....

Yeah~! Who are these gun-grabbers? No YouTube video, photos, news items, facts, data....? Nada, zero, zip.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

People like BFGRN think a semi auto AR-15 belongs only on the battle field...because it's scary looking.

It has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with rate of fire, magazine capacity and the carnage it can inflict in a school, movie theater or any public place where citizens peacefully gather.

Of course it has to do with looks. I own a Springfield M1A. By the definition used in Clintion's "assault weapon" ban, it does not qualify as an "assault rifle", despite the fact that it (especially in the shorter formats) is a far better battle rifle than the ARs.

The assault rifle ban used the following criteria:
"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount"

Of the 5 criteria, only one has any actual bearing on the operation of the rifle in a criminal manner, and that is the folding or collapsible stock. This makes the rifle more concealable. The pistol grip is purely cosmetic. The bayonet mount is purely cosmetic (unless you know of any crimes in which a mounted bayonet was used). The flash suppressor is purely cosmetic. And the grenade launcher is not only purely cosmetic, the ability to buy grenades for such a launcher is so strictly regulated as to be unavailable except thru the black market.

Damn those grenade grabbers!!!!!!!!

 

[Missourian]

Another thread on non-existent "gun grabbers'. It is always fun to watch paranoids on parade....

Uh...

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!

Oops, so much for non-existent. Sorry, please try again.

 

[WinterBorn]

See here is my point. While making a childish comment he calls me infantile. Oh boy. And I'm not even anti gun.

I think everyone really needs to chill though. Some of the nicest people I know are gun owners and the same can be said for anti gun people. Discuss things in a civil manner.

You are vile. The reason why I call you names is because you are a dishonest hack piece of crap with an agenda. You ignore data and links provided to you. You outright lie. YOU claim you are not anti-gun yet post anti-gun rhetoric in EVERY single gun thread. You are a liar and a traitor to the American people. I hate you. That's why I call YOU names. A lying dishonest sack of crap is all you are. YOU have earned every single name I've called you.

And again the angry gun nut. Thanks for proving my point.

Angry anti gun nut is YOU. You want to leave women defenseless against rapists who may even murder them, and even go so far as to say that women can fight off a rapist and that men are NOT stronger than women. You are a piece of shit.

This is part of the problem gun grabbers are facing. Women are the number one driving force behind gun control...conversely, the number one fastest growing segment of gun owners are women.

LAS VEGAS — The gun world is not just a man’s world anymore.

Women are buying more guns, hunting and participating in the shooting sports more than ever, according to a study released Wednesday by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“We’re changing the industry,” said Lucretia Free, publisher of The American Woman Shooter.

In 2001, there were 1.8 million female hunters in the country. In 2013, there were 3.3 million female hunters, an 85 percent increase in the dozen years, according to the study released last week at the shooting sports organization’s annual SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoors Trade) Show in Las Vegas.

In 2001, there were 3.3 million female target shooters in the country. In 2013, that number had grown to 5.4 million, or increased by 60 percent.

And those numbers don’t include the number of women who own a gun only for protection, which is why most women initially buy a gun.

Study More Women Buying Guns Participating In Shooting Sports Times Record
​

What is driving this growth? At least in part the success of the conceal carry movement.

The gun control groups staked their reputations on a lie...that conceal carry would lead to a new "Wild West" where law abiding citizens would be filling the streets with lead! Oh my!

Not only did that narrative prove false, but just the opposite occurred, crime dropped, and responsible citizens (gasp) carried concealed weapons responsibly.

Today, women are asking "why am I not doing that? I am responsible. Why am I leaving myself at a disadvantage?"

And in response, they are not.

My wife owns here own guns, with far different designated purposes than my own. Where my guns are almost exclusively of the hunting variety, hers are exclusively for the purpose of self defense.

She and her girlfriends have a girls range day once a week. At first there were four...now there are ten.

I keep trying to steal away her Maverick 8-shot Model 88 Security 12 gauge, but so far I have not been successful.

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.

Diane Feinstein does:

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”



Joe Biden does:

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993



Sarah Brady does:

“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – The National Educator, January 1994, pg. 3, to Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

 

[Missourian]

How exactly would that have averted Newtown?

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

Still waiting...

 

[Vandalshandle]

BFGRN,

Shame on you! Return every single gun that you have grabbed, this very minute! And tell Joe, Sarah, and Diane to do the same!

 

[WinterBorn]

I think there is a lot of anger on both sides of pretty much every issue. The days of civil discourse are, sadly, long gone.

This is part of why I am considering either severely limiting my time on the various forums, or avoiding them altogether. Spouting hate is not constructive or conducive to accomplishing anything at all. The people who can consistently discuss an issue in a civil manner are few and far between.

Well....in the old days....you would call out a jerk and have a duel.....was that more or less civil than today...?

In the "old days" there were rarely any duels over disagreements on political matters. Today there are damn few who discuss an issue without calling names or going ballistic.

Being a jerk is not a capital offense.

But should it be..............?

Fuck no it shouldn't be. Just because someone disagrees with you or is a jerk does not mean they should die.

Yeah...but what if they are a really big jerk?

Unless they are threatening you, nope. Sorry. No open season on jerks.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

You are not really going to use that strawman argument are you? If Feinstein needed "51 votes" then there must have been a "vote" to ban ALL guns...right?

Is THAT what you are trying to portray...???