Why the liberals are lossing the debate about guns.

[auditor0007]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Yea, it's funny how so few understand what it would actually entail to take away those 300 million guns. It ain't happening. What I find ridiculous is that so many are against simple mandatory background checks for those purchasing guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Post ten of those predictions, then tell me why not getting out of the Senate proves anything about the substance of the debate.

Do they all have to be from you?

No, you have to prove to us that the true measure of winning or losing the debate is in the hands of the Senate.

It is not in the hands of the Senate, it is in the hands of the people, which actually vote, which is why the Senate won't pass the bill.

 

[jtpr312]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Yea, it's funny how so few understand what it would actually entail to take away those 300 million guns. It ain't happening. What I find ridiculous is that so many are against simple mandatory background checks for those purchasing guns.

What I dont understand is what drug liberals take to make them think that would accomplish anything other than sticking it to lawful gun owners.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

 

[editec]

Lotsa big talkers here.

Basically it all boils down to this kind of braggadccio crap:

"Obama gonna take away my guns and I'll shoot the cops and military"

I'm sure we're all very impressed.

Meanwhile NDAA has already taken away your 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights and what do these heroic boys do about it?

Not a bloody thing.

Talk is cheap, boys.

 

[jtpr312]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

You're obviously an idiot, I can see no other explaniation for your dumbass statements regarding ammo clips and you being a bad shot if 10 aren't enough. I can show you account after account, after account where TRAINED Police Officers, not to mention trained soldiers, fired more than 10 shots to stop a dangerous felon/enemy, often times emptying their guns without hitting a damn thing. You obviously think shooting at a paper target at the range is the same as shooting at some scumbag that is shooting back at you, it's not. Here's another FYI. Driving is NOT a Constitutional right, owning firearms is and what part of "shall not be infringed" do you have a problem understanding? Is it the shall not part? I'll help, shall-"Shall" derives from the Old English "sceal" meaning "must", Not-Used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative. Or is your problem with not understanding infringed? I'll help there also. Infringed-Act so as to limit or undermine (something). Not too hard to understand son. Furthermore the second Amendment, as defined and explained by the men who wrote it, debated on it and then voted on it, you remember them right, our Founders, had absolutely NOTHING to do with defending yourself from intruders and was put their to give the citizens the right and the means to defend themselves from an oppressive govt. Seems you're just as ignorant on our history as you are on CQB.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

You were never in the miltary. That much is obvious.
There are trillions of "clips" over 10 rounds in circulation already. What legislation would you like to see to get rid of all of them?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

You were never in the miltary. That much is obvious.
There are trillions of "clips" over 10 rounds in circulation already. What legislation would you like to see to get rid of all of them?

I was never in the military? Really? You can get all of that from a messageboard? I'm pretty sure that DFAS and the fact that I've got a retired ID card would disagree with that.

Never said how many rounds the military could have, just said what the politicians were saying that the maximum amount of rounds you could have in your gun before you had to reload.

And yeah........................I support the 10 round maximum.

You might wanna take a class on reading comprehension sometime before posting on here again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do they all have to be from you?

No, you have to prove to us that the true measure of winning or losing the debate is in the hands of the Senate.

It is not in the hands of the Senate, it is in the hands of the people, which actually vote, which is why the Senate won't pass the bill.

The Senate does not represent the vote of the people. The Senate makeup is drastically skewed to the advantage of states with small populations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They aren't losing the debate.

I remember multiple predictions right here on this board that there would be a ban on assault weapons, yet the Senate is not even going to introduce a bill that includes such a ban. Tell me again you aren't losing.

You have now told me the Senate is not the relevant measure of who is winning the debate.

1. Who predicted the assault weapons ban would pass?

2. Why is that relevant to who is winning the debate?

There are 3 major components to the gun law debate, currently

a. Banning assault style weapons
b. Restricting magazine capacity
c. Universal background checks

If you're defining the 'debate' you referred to as public opinion, then gun control is winning all three, because all three have majority support in the polls.

If you're defining the 'debate' as being won or lost by what legislation passes, we don't know who's winning that because that process has not played out.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

obama intends to disarm the Veterans FIRST.

SHOCK REPORT ? Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms | The Gateway Pundit

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Driving is a right?


Then it should be easy for you to point to where it's written in the Bill of Rights.

Oh and I guess the purpose of a driving and written test to be licensed to legally operate a motor vehicle is just symbolism.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

You were never in the miltary. That much is obvious.
There are trillions of "clips" over 10 rounds in circulation already. What legislation would you like to see to get rid of all of them?

I was never in the military? Really? You can get all of that from a messageboard? I'm pretty sure that DFAS and the fact that I've got a retired ID card would disagree with that.

Never said how many rounds the military could have, just said what the politicians were saying that the maximum amount of rounds you could have in your gun before you had to reload.

And yeah........................I support the 10 round maximum.

You might wanna take a class on reading comprehension sometime before posting on here again.

Anyone remotely familiar with guns does not call them "clips" unless referring to an M1 Garand. Perhaps you shoveled shit instead.

And you have not answered the question as to how current legislation would alter the reality of tens of millions of existing hi cap mags already in circulation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You were never in the miltary. That much is obvious.
There are trillions of "clips" over 10 rounds in circulation already. What legislation would you like to see to get rid of all of them?

I was never in the military? Really? You can get all of that from a messageboard? I'm pretty sure that DFAS and the fact that I've got a retired ID card would disagree with that.

Never said how many rounds the military could have, just said what the politicians were saying that the maximum amount of rounds you could have in your gun before you had to reload.

And yeah........................I support the 10 round maximum.

You might wanna take a class on reading comprehension sometime before posting on here again.

Anyone remotely familiar with guns does not call them "clips" unless referring to an M1 Garand. Perhaps you shoveled shit instead.

And you have not answered the question as to how current legislation would alter the reality of tens of millions of existing hi cap mags already in circulation.

If I had a dime for every time I had to explain to liberal idiots the difference between a magazine and a clip I could retire... again.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Driving is a right?


Then it should be easy for you to point to where it's written in the Bill of Rights.
Oh and I guess the purpose of a driving and written test to be licensed to legally operate a motor vehicle is just symbolism.

Still waiting!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

obama intends to disarm the Veterans FIRST.

SHOCK REPORT ? Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms | The Gateway Pundit

Is he going to do this personally? I'm just wondering if he will be able to find the time. I think his calandar is pretty full, and taking 300,000,000 guns away from Americans, 25% of which seem to be intent on using their guns to stop him, seems to be a pretty ambitious goal for a guy who stll hasn't figured out how to withdraw from Afganistan in 5 years time.