CDZ Why are anti gunners so open all of a sudden about banning guns?

[boedicca]

Irrefutable laws of nature

1 People kill people
2 People have always killed people
3 People will always kill people
4 Gravity

Yet oddly, in countries where they don't have easy access to guns, they kill a lot LESS people.

No, they still kill people, they just don't use guns. The USA is far down the list, 83rd, in per capita murder rates by country. Per FBI statistics.

In other news, knife crimes are way up in the UK.

Untie the hands of the police, PM, and let them end scourge of knife crime

 

[EGR one]

and neither do 99% of the gun owners in this country...you know dam well that the die hard anti-gunners are just as passionate about what they believe as the die hard pro gunners,quit acting like one is more reasonable than the other.....

Uh, sorry, guy, there's no way you can paint "I think that we should let crazy people have guns because we might need to fight the government some day" is reasonable on any day of the week.

"There should be reasonable restrictions on who can own a gun" is actually, pretty reasonable.

Have you figured out how you are going to identify all the crazy people who shouldn't own guns. It is fairly easy after the fact, not so easy up front. And, since being crazy does not mean they are not smart, I am sure they can figure out a way to get that gun whether you like it or not.

 

[DOTR]

I think that the anti gunners believe they have a shot at ending the 2nd Amendment, and that is why they feel free to be honest about what they want...banning all semi automatic guns...that would include semi automatic rifles, pistols, ( including revolvers) and shotguns.....which would end concealed and open carry as well.

Why do they think they have a shot at ending the 2nd Amendment....?

They think the democrats will get control of the House in 2018.
.

This is something that is about two years old and begins with their overstepping in the last election. They moved just barely too quick thinking they had imported enough third-world foreigners for a final win. In their minds the Americans were defeated. Didnt work out that way but it was a close call. Close enough that they feel they dont have to hide their antipathy towards the constitution any more nor even keep up their pretenses.
And as you said they are convinced they will win the House on an anti-trump ticket. Democrats are always just an itty bitty smidgen of a step from power and control in their minds. This emboldens losers.
And I will tell you something else. Dont doubt me on this. They also hold out a secret hope of winning a bare majority in the Senate and immediately getting rid of the filibuster rule and thus ruling both houses. If they ever take the Senate that will be their first move.

 

[DOTR]

Joe is just a typical garden variety cognitively dissonant Prog.

He thinks Trump is Literally Hitler, but wants the Feds to disarm citizens and for the government to have all the weapons.

Go figure.

I do not understand why you feel any surprise over this. Liberals are authoritarian. A government with unlimited power and a disarmed citizenry go together. This would only be cognitive dissonance among people who are misinformed but of good will. Liberals are evil and have no soul. it is perfectly reasonable for marxist serfs to want this.

 

[2aguy]

I think that the anti gunners believe they have a shot at ending the 2nd Amendment, and that is why they feel free to be honest about what they want...banning all semi automatic guns...that would include semi automatic rifles, pistols, ( including revolvers) and shotguns.....which would end concealed and open carry as well.

Why do they think they have a shot at ending the 2nd Amendment....?

They think the democrats will get control of the House in 2018.
.

This is something that is about two years old and begins with their overstepping in the last election. They moved just barely too quick thinking they had imported enough third-world foreigners for a final win. In their minds the Americans were defeated. Didnt work out that way but it was a close call. Close enough that they feel they dont have to hide their antipathy towards the constitution any more nor even keep up their pretenses.
And as you said they are convinced they will win the House on an anti-trump ticket. Democrats are always just an itty bitty smidgen of a step from power and control in their minds. This emboldens losers.
And I will tell you something else. Dont doubt me on this. They also hold out a secret hope of winning a bare majority in the Senate and immediately getting rid of the filibuster rule and thus ruling both houses. If they ever take the Senate that will be their first move.

Exactly....which is why the Republicans should get rid of the filibuster first.....john mccain blocked getting rid of the Judicial filibuster....and then the democrats got rid of it giving obama all sorts of left wingers on the bench......they will do the same for the filibuster on legislation once they regain control...

 

[DOTR]

This should be a lesson for all decent Americans. Your fight against liberals, marxists, democrats, authoritarians IS NOT POLITICAL!!!
Until you understand that you will lose again and again.

 

[JoeB131]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

 

[justinacolmena]

I am transgender. You'd think I'd just LOVE the Democratic Party, because they are so "tolerant" and all that, right?

No. It doesn't work that way. A trans woman is not a gay man. I do like the pick-ups and come-ons in public restrooms and I do not associate with the "scene." There is no #LGBT love-fest, as the Democratic Party continually bills. Think about it. If L and G loved each other that much, they would be "straight." But they are not. Lesbians and Gays continue to maintain rigid, somewhat fetishized "traditional" gender roles, and to viciously mock "fag hags" and "dyke tykes."

B? Bisexual? Swingers? Polyamory? No. They simply party too hard, and they pimp and whore and swing brass knuckles. Drug-and-alcohol induced sex.

Under Democratic Party policies, BY LAW, I am ...

• an adjudicated mental defective;
• a paranoid schizophrenic;
• mentally incompetent to stand trial;
• criminally insane;
• a danger to myself or others; and
  
• gravely disabled.

I am a dangerous, violent person, because I talk loud, and sometimes I say things other people don't like. I don't take my "medications" like I am supposed to. I don't do street drugs, either, and nothing enrages a Democrat more than "Just Say No!" or the war on drugs.

 

[JoeB131]

If 33,000 is too many, what would be an acceptable number for you to let us keep our guns?

Mark

I kind of like where the Europeans are at...

Germany has 250 gun homicides a year. 719 gun suicides. And germany is a country where the gun laws are actually kind of moderate. You can own a gun, but it's not considered a right because that would be stupid.

Instead, you get a gun after you have been checked out, trained, qualified, licensed and insured.

Personally, I'd rather go the route of Japan, and you guys just can't have guns because you don't need them. But I'm willing to comprimise and meet you halfway.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think that the anti gunners believe they have a shot at ending the 2nd Amendment, and that is why they feel free to be honest about what they want...banning all semi automatic guns...that would include semi automatic rifles, pistols, ( including revolvers) and shotguns.....which would end concealed and open carry as well.

Why do they think they have a shot at ending the 2nd Amendment....?

They think the democrats will get control of the House in 2018.

If that happens they will immediately impeach Trump. They also think that with their Never Trump republican allies, they can bully the cowardly moderate Rebublicans in the Senate to actually remove him from office.....and Pence, having been Trump's guy, will be powerless as he fills out Trump's last years.

That is what they hope.

At a minimum, by impeaching Trump they think they will then have the juice to block any new appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, using their Never Trump allies and bullying moderate Republican cowards to go along with it.....

That means if ginsburg and kennedy retire or die, he won't be able to put real Justices on the court, and if Justice Thomas retires or dies, he won't be able to keep the status quo on the court.....and they think they will be able to elect a democrat as President, who will then be the one shaping the court for the next 30 years....

If that happens....the 2nd Amendment will be nothing but ink on paper, just as it is in Mexico.

They will vote on the 4th Circuit Court of appeals ban on Assault weapons, which will ban all semi auto weapons, and they will use the courts to sue gun makers into submission.

That is why the democrats are openly calling for a ban on semi automatic weapons.......which is essentially almost every gun in the country....

they have really exposed themselves

it is going to be difficult if not impossible to back off that cliff

even better is some of these folks are willing to resort to violence to do it

 

[JoeB131]

Have you figured out how you are going to identify all the crazy people who shouldn't own guns. It is fairly easy after the fact, not so easy up front. And, since being crazy does not mean they are not smart, I am sure they can figure out a way to get that gun whether you like it or not.

Sure I can.

You can't buy a gun until we've talked to your boss, your teacher, your neighbors and your family.

You see, the funny thing about mass shooters. The two things we always find out about them.

1) Everyone in their life knew they were crazy.
2) They were able to get a gun, anyway.

The fact that you loons exist is enough reason to own guns. I have always wondered why, since the rest of the advanced world is more to your liking, why are you not there.

Because I've put a lot of work into this country, thanks. At least according to my DD214, anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe is just a typical garden variety cognitively dissonant Prog.

He thinks Trump is Literally Hitler, but wants the Feds to disarm citizens and for the government to have all the weapons.

Here's the thing.

Armed Germans didn't stop Hitler
Armed Americans aren't going to stop Trump.

The thing was, under Hitler, gun ownership was pretty widespread in Germany. All these guys came back from WWI with their Lugers and their Gewehrs because, hey, the German Army more collapsed than disbanded in WWI. And although the Weimar Government passed some gun laws, they really didn't take a lot of them out of circulation.

But you see, a funny thing happened when the Nazis came for people.

I Let this guy explain it to you.

 

[Anathema]

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.

Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

What you fail to take into account is that the musket you show was also the main military issued firearm of the day. The British Redcoat carried essentially the same firearm. Incidentally, Colonists also owned artillery pieces, cavalry equipment (horses & sabres), and naval vessels.

So, I see no reason why modern Americans should not ge allowed to own the same level of military tech as the Government has.

 

[Harry Dresden]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.
sure you did joe.....you totally avoided what i was asking through the whole conversation....nice dance though....

 

[JoeB131]

What you fail to take into account is that the musket you show was also the main military issued firearm of the day. The British Redcoat carried essentially the same firearm. Incidentally, Colonists also owned artillery pieces, cavalry equipment (horses & sabres), and naval vessels.

So, I see no reason why modern Americans should not ge allowed to own the same level of military tech as the Government has.

Nope, that would be even crazier than what we are doing now.

You see, here was the thing. Few people owned guns in 1776. When the Redcoats were coming, they were coming to seize guns at the arsenal at Lexington, not going house to house looking for muskets people didn't have.

 

[Anathema]

Nope, that would be even crazier than what we are doing now.

You see, here was the thing. Few people owned guns in 1776. When the Redcoats were coming, they were coming to seize guns at the arsenal at Lexington, not going house to house looking for muskets people didn't have.

It would also be Constitutional, unlike our current gun laws.

That arsenal was owned by the citizens of Lexington and did contain private arms in addition to the munitions of the Militia. They were not property of the Town, the Colony, or the Crown.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So people are lying about owning guns as much as they always have

And you do not have the right to tell me what I need.

When your hobby kills 33,000 of us a year, we do have a say.

If 33,000 is too many, what would be an acceptable number for you to let us keep our guns?

Mark

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban all guns no one will ever get murdered again

 

[Skull Pilot]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

So if we use your "logic" in regards to the second amendment and apply it to the first then the only type of written speech that is protected by the first amendment is that which was written with quill and ink on parchment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One more time, why would any of this be a bad thing?

Do you have a better argument than "The Founding Slave Owners Said I can have any gun I want if you read it the right way"?

I said from the start that Trump is talking about deporting the wrong people: keep the hard working, family oriented, Christian illegal immigrants and deport Joe, Antifa and Hogg.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If 33,000 is too many, what would be an acceptable number for you to let us keep our guns?

Mark

I kind of like where the Europeans are at...

Germany has 250 gun homicides a year. 719 gun suicides. And germany is a country where the gun laws are actually kind of moderate. You can own a gun, but it's not considered a right because that would be stupid.

Instead, you get a gun after you have been checked out, trained, qualified, licensed and insured.

Personally, I'd rather go the route of Japan, and you guys just can't have guns because you don't need them. But I'm willing to comprimise and meet you halfway.

Move to Europe.

I bet they won't like you there either

Sooner or later you have to realize that it's YOU that is the problem