5 ways we know that yes, they want to ban guns and end the 2nd Amendment...

[Rustic]

/-----/ These famous leaders agree with you 100%. What could possibly go wrong?
View attachment 197959

Actually, gun control works in other civilized countries. Maybe when we're civilized for real...

Not really... They just use other things to act out their violence.
And on top of that firearms still make their way into those countries even though you gun grabbers say that gun control will stop All gun violence...

I'd rather be attacked by anything other than a firearm. But hey, maybe that's just me.

No firearm will ever attack you don't you know that yet?

I'd rather have a firearm for protection against anyone attacking me with any weapon

I choose to live in a place where people don't go around shooting each other all the time. If I lived where you do, I'd likely pack as well, out of fear for my life. But like I said, I choose not to live in that kind of situation.

You live in an urban area... violent behavior breeds in urban areas

 

[Rustic]

Yes....they want to ban guns and they want to end the 2nd Amendment...how do we know? They keep telling us they want to ban guns and end the 2nd Amendment....

5 Facts Proving "They Are Coming For Your Guns" Is Not A Conspiracy Theory

1. The mainstream media is openly calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment
It is no secret that every time there are reports of a mass shooting, there are a number of politicians who openly call for gun control, but there has recently been an increase in media outlets joining the anti-gun bandwagon. The Miami Herald published an Op-Ed titled, “Repeal The Second Amendment—It’s Not A Crazy Idea.” Rolling Stone published an explanation on “Why It’s Time To Repeal The Second Amendment.” And USA Today stated, “Repeal The Second Amendment. It’s The Only Way Towards Real Change.”

------

2. Students are parroting the claims and using their platforms as victims of gun violence to push for a ban on guns
Parkland Shooting survivor David Hogg has become the face of the student activist movement against guns, and the demands are troubling. The students are openly supporting a ban on guns that have been deemed “assault rifles,” a ban on high-capacity magazines, a federal background check “on every gun sale,” increasing taxes on gun sales and raising the minimum age to own a gun to 21.

In a speech at a March For Our Lives rally, Stoneman Douglas student Delaney Tarr revealed that even if the students achieve individual bans, they will continue to push until the Second Amendment is fully dismantled. “We will take the big and we will take the small, but we will keep fighting. When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for breadcrumbs. We are here for real change,” she said.
--------

3. Law Enforcement officials are also calling for a ban on guns—which means they would be the only ones with guns
It is no secret that a ban on guns would result in law enforcement officers and criminals being the only individuals who have guns. Daryl Fisher, a candidate for Buncombe County Sheriff in North Carolina, recently addressed the issue of how police would confiscate the firearms, and when proposed with the quote “you’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands,” he shrugged his shoulders and said “OK!”

What are the chances of the 2nd amendment being repealed?

2016 Presidential election 2016 by county...

There you go...

 

[PredFan]

/-----/ These famous leaders agree with you 100%. What could possibly go wrong?
View attachment 197959

Actually, gun control works in other civilized countries. Maybe when we're civilized for real...

Actually, it depends on how you look at it. If all you care about is gun deaths then yes, it works. But if you care about all deaths and violent crime, gun bans are a massive failure.

Gun bans stopped gun deaths and it worked, so what's the problem? Guns laws didn't stop car crashes as well so they must be no good?

Damn! Did you not read the post you responded to or is it that you can’t read?

Ya, gun laws didn't stop the food in your fridge from going bad, so they must not work.

It must be that you are illiterate. I suggest a remedial reading course.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we go again. Just how many times are you going to keep doing this. One one hand you keep perpetuating the gun "They are trying to take all my guns" culture. And on the other hand, you are glorifying the Mass Shooters. Then you complain that everyone else is glorifying the mass shooters. Newsflash: That someone is YOU.

Now, let's take a look at your Cite. It's listed on the Net as a conspiracy site. It's degree of truth is rated as low. What it does is puts in enough truth to sound true but then scatters falsehoods to take it another direction. The Activist Post is nothing more than a Blog and part of a large group of conspiracy sites. If you stay with it, it puts it's hand out for money. For instance, Dr. Otto Warburg did exist. HE was a Nobel Prize Winner in Nazi Germany. That part is true. But he did NOT find the one and only true cure for cancer. This is where the conspiracy breaks down. He published a few things and was finally debunked in 1962 when he stated that Cancer was only caused by Pollution. He was only partially correct. We know now that some people are born with the cancer built into their dna and even without Pollution, they will end up with Cancer. Meanwhile, the clip continues to scare people that scare already scared people to send them money for this revolutionary cure. This is sad.

Repeal The Second Amendment

You have misrepresented this. The fact remains that the FFS had no idea what would happen AFTER 1850 where our weapons would outgrow our 2nd amendment. The Constitution is a living document. Meaning, it is supposed to be updated as the nation matures. The 2nd amendment was left vague so that it could be updated. It hasn't been. For instance, the first half of it referring to the need for the Organized Militia went by the way in 1917 with the National Guard Act. The 2nd amendment needed to be updated for that. Then our weapons outgrew the safe personal usage of the individual. We now had the full Automatic Weapons, Grenade Launchers and more. And let's not forget the rifle that started it all, the Browning Model 1917 Automatic Rifle. This rifle was so good that the US decided NOT to send it to Europe during WWI in fear that it would be copied by the Germans and used against us. The BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) brought us the M-1, M-14 and Mini-14. But the Civilian versions of the M-1, M-14 and MIni-14 were semi-auto and really made lousy military weapons as they were a bit cumbersome. The Thompson and other Automatic Rifles were found to be just too destructive for civilian life. What brought them down was that fact that they were used in spray and pray and more innocents were being killed than the bad guys that were intended to be killed. Something had to be done.

What was done was the Firearms Act of 1934. Rather than go out and completely outlaw them, they stopped manufacture of them. They also stopped manufacture of replacement parts. You could no longer sell them, transfer them, give them away or even will them to your children. Every time they found one used in a crime, they destroyed the weapon. In about a 10 year time, the Thompson was completely off the streets and out of the Criminals hands. And when they broke, they became a wall hangar. You can sell, give away, bequeath a wall hanger if you disable it from ever being used as a firearm again. Many went into firearms collectors hands who had FFL Licenses who could buy and sell them legally to others with FFL licenses. They weren't banned at all.

The question remains, is the creation of the FFL regulation against the 2nd amendment? Why was it not then but it is now? And do we need to keep the vagueness of the 2nd amendment, repeal it and replace it or just amend it like we have with other amendments? We do need something to protect our personal firearms but we need a clear idea of what we need those firearms to be used for and then match the class of firearms to the need. I can use a Bazooka to hunt deer with but it's not the best tool. But that Remington Model 700 is a much better choice.

Students are parroting the claims and using their platforms as victims of gun violence to push for a ban on guns

Could it be that they just don't want to be next on the kill list? I can see how the Little Girl scares the living hell out of you. She just turned Voting Age as does millions of other graduating High School Seniors that don't wish for their younger brothers, sisters and friends to be the next victims. You can't buy their votes. You can't buy their support. The Bought and Paid for Politicians are having to do a complete rethink. Some are starting to do a rethink. But first they have to sever the pig trough they have been eating at and that is hard to do. Here are most of the students are going for:

1. Increasing the buying age of firearms to 21
2. decreasing the number of rounds in a magazine
3. comprehensive background checks with NO exceptions
4. Classifying firearms to what is for personal protection, hunting and what is not

Look for this to become nationwide state to state. It's happening already. Those Piggies are going to have to go find jobs. Not to worry, the Corporations they have been working for all along have jobs waiting for them. They certainly don't work for the American People. This is what those Young Adults are saying.

Law Enforcement officials are also calling for a ban on guns—which means they would be the only ones with guns

Your site showed just a few seconds of what this Sheriff said. it's called taking it out of context. Here is an interview by a Republican Newsman afterwards.



States are chipping away at the constitutional rights granted by the Second Amendment by passing laws banning guns that have been deemed “assault rifles”

They used Boulder as an example. Once again, misinformation. Yes, the ordinance passed but it's not in affect. They are still trying to hammer out the details. It''s complicated. For instance, some parts of it goes just a bit too far while other parts are just impossible to enforce. While the idea is good, the final product may look completely different than the beginning document.

Congress recently passed legislation that gives federal agencies power over gun control, effectively putting every American’s Second Amendment rights at risk

Horsepucky. The Federall Government has very little rights to regulate firearms outside off the extreme weapons. The States hold those rights.

I just love your scare tactics. And that is all they are. Misinformation of the worst kind. Please stop this nonsense. It's getting people killed.

Why don’t you just go live in a state where you have no right to any firearms?
Most of the United States are getting rid of frivolous laws the firearms, that is a good sign.

Says you. Yet most states do have common sense firearms regulations that you find "Against the 2nd Amendment". Even Florida just passed a few of them. And look for more on the way. And they may come for your guns if they deem you are too unsettled to have them but they won't mine since I pose no threat to society with mine. So be very careful with your posts. The day that you Mentally unhenged can possess weapons may be coming to an end soon.

Na, my firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business

You keep saying that over and over. Once or twice or even 10 times should be enough to get your point across. No one is trying to get you to register your firearms. You can if you want to if you can find someone to accept your form. I just don't know of anyone willing to file it other than a round file. Sorry, but you just can't get any fear response on this one from me.

 

[PredFan]

The only honest way to compare to populations that differ in size is to use ratios not absolute numbers

UK = 65 million people, 14 gun murders.

US = 350 million people, 9,369 gun murders.

You do the math. I'll wait.

Tell me is murder by knife not murder?

Murder is murder it matters not if it is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a lead pipe, a car, a bomb, a fist etc ad infinitum.

I'd rather be attacked by a knife wielder than a firearm wielder.

And I’d rather have a gun for protection so I can survive either.

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

 

[Taz]

Actually, gun control works in other civilized countries. Maybe when we're civilized for real...

Actually, it depends on how you look at it. If all you care about is gun deaths then yes, it works. But if you care about all deaths and violent crime, gun bans are a massive failure.

Gun bans stopped gun deaths and it worked, so what's the problem? Guns laws didn't stop car crashes as well so they must be no good?

Damn! Did you not read the post you responded to or is it that you can’t read?

Ya, gun laws didn't stop the food in your fridge from going bad, so they must not work.

It must be that you are illiterate. I suggest a remedial reading course.

Didn't seem to work for you.

 

[Taz]

UK = 65 million people, 14 gun murders.

US = 350 million people, 9,369 gun murders.

You do the math. I'll wait.

Tell me is murder by knife not murder?

Murder is murder it matters not if it is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a lead pipe, a car, a bomb, a fist etc ad infinitum.

I'd rather be attacked by a knife wielder than a firearm wielder.

And I’d rather have a gun for protection so I can survive either.

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

It's a question, yes or no?

 

[PredFan]

Tell me is murder by knife not murder?

Murder is murder it matters not if it is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a lead pipe, a car, a bomb, a fist etc ad infinitum.

I'd rather be attacked by a knife wielder than a firearm wielder.

And I’d rather have a gun for protection so I can survive either.

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

It's a question, yes or no?

It’s irrelevant, but with your obvious reading comprehension handicap, you won’t understand.

 

[Taz]

I'd rather be attacked by a knife wielder than a firearm wielder.

And I’d rather have a gun for protection so I can survive either.

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

It's a question, yes or no?

It’s irrelevant, but with your obvious reading comprehension handicap, you won’t understand.

It's ok, I know that you're just too much of a weenie to answer because we all know the right answer.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Here we go again. Just how many times are you going to keep doing this. One one hand you keep perpetuating the gun "They are trying to take all my guns" culture. And on the other hand, you are glorifying the Mass Shooters. Then you complain that everyone else is glorifying the mass shooters. Newsflash: That someone is YOU.

Now, let's take a look at your Cite. It's listed on the Net as a conspiracy site. It's degree of truth is rated as low. What it does is puts in enough truth to sound true but then scatters falsehoods to take it another direction. The Activist Post is nothing more than a Blog and part of a large group of conspiracy sites. If you stay with it, it puts it's hand out for money. For instance, Dr. Otto Warburg did exist. HE was a Nobel Prize Winner in Nazi Germany. That part is true. But he did NOT find the one and only true cure for cancer. This is where the conspiracy breaks down. He published a few things and was finally debunked in 1962 when he stated that Cancer was only caused by Pollution. He was only partially correct. We know now that some people are born with the cancer built into their dna and even without Pollution, they will end up with Cancer. Meanwhile, the clip continues to scare people that scare already scared people to send them money for this revolutionary cure. This is sad.

Repeal The Second Amendment

You have misrepresented this. The fact remains that the FFS had no idea what would happen AFTER 1850 where our weapons would outgrow our 2nd amendment. The Constitution is a living document. Meaning, it is supposed to be updated as the nation matures. The 2nd amendment was left vague so that it could be updated. It hasn't been. For instance, the first half of it referring to the need for the Organized Militia went by the way in 1917 with the National Guard Act. The 2nd amendment needed to be updated for that. Then our weapons outgrew the safe personal usage of the individual. We now had the full Automatic Weapons, Grenade Launchers and more. And let's not forget the rifle that started it all, the Browning Model 1917 Automatic Rifle. This rifle was so good that the US decided NOT to send it to Europe during WWI in fear that it would be copied by the Germans and used against us. The BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) brought us the M-1, M-14 and Mini-14. But the Civilian versions of the M-1, M-14 and MIni-14 were semi-auto and really made lousy military weapons as they were a bit cumbersome. The Thompson and other Automatic Rifles were found to be just too destructive for civilian life. What brought them down was that fact that they were used in spray and pray and more innocents were being killed than the bad guys that were intended to be killed. Something had to be done.

What was done was the Firearms Act of 1934. Rather than go out and completely outlaw them, they stopped manufacture of them. They also stopped manufacture of replacement parts. You could no longer sell them, transfer them, give them away or even will them to your children. Every time they found one used in a crime, they destroyed the weapon. In about a 10 year time, the Thompson was completely off the streets and out of the Criminals hands. And when they broke, they became a wall hangar. You can sell, give away, bequeath a wall hanger if you disable it from ever being used as a firearm again. Many went into firearms collectors hands who had FFL Licenses who could buy and sell them legally to others with FFL licenses. They weren't banned at all.

The question remains, is the creation of the FFL regulation against the 2nd amendment? Why was it not then but it is now? And do we need to keep the vagueness of the 2nd amendment, repeal it and replace it or just amend it like we have with other amendments? We do need something to protect our personal firearms but we need a clear idea of what we need those firearms to be used for and then match the class of firearms to the need. I can use a Bazooka to hunt deer with but it's not the best tool. But that Remington Model 700 is a much better choice.

Students are parroting the claims and using their platforms as victims of gun violence to push for a ban on guns

Could it be that they just don't want to be next on the kill list? I can see how the Little Girl scares the living hell out of you. She just turned Voting Age as does millions of other graduating High School Seniors that don't wish for their younger brothers, sisters and friends to be the next victims. You can't buy their votes. You can't buy their support. The Bought and Paid for Politicians are having to do a complete rethink. Some are starting to do a rethink. But first they have to sever the pig trough they have been eating at and that is hard to do. Here are most of the students are going for:

1. Increasing the buying age of firearms to 21
2. decreasing the number of rounds in a magazine
3. comprehensive background checks with NO exceptions
4. Classifying firearms to what is for personal protection, hunting and what is not

Look for this to become nationwide state to state. It's happening already. Those Piggies are going to have to go find jobs. Not to worry, the Corporations they have been working for all along have jobs waiting for them. They certainly don't work for the American People. This is what those Young Adults are saying.

Law Enforcement officials are also calling for a ban on guns—which means they would be the only ones with guns

Your site showed just a few seconds of what this Sheriff said. it's called taking it out of context. Here is an interview by a Republican Newsman afterwards.



States are chipping away at the constitutional rights granted by the Second Amendment by passing laws banning guns that have been deemed “assault rifles”

They used Boulder as an example. Once again, misinformation. Yes, the ordinance passed but it's not in affect. They are still trying to hammer out the details. It''s complicated. For instance, some parts of it goes just a bit too far while other parts are just impossible to enforce. While the idea is good, the final product may look completely different than the beginning document.

Congress recently passed legislation that gives federal agencies power over gun control, effectively putting every American’s Second Amendment rights at risk

Horsepucky. The Federall Government has very little rights to regulate firearms outside off the extreme weapons. The States hold those rights.

I just love your scare tactics. And that is all they are. Misinformation of the worst kind. Please stop this nonsense. It's getting people killed.

Why don’t you just go live in a state where you have no right to any firearms?
Most of the United States are getting rid of frivolous laws the firearms, that is a good sign.

Says you. Yet most states do have common sense firearms regulations that you find "Against the 2nd Amendment". Even Florida just passed a few of them. And look for more on the way. And they may come for your guns if they deem you are too unsettled to have them but they won't mine since I pose no threat to society with mine. So be very careful with your posts. The day that you Mentally unhenged can possess weapons may be coming to an end soon.

Na, my firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business

You keep saying that over and over. Once or twice or even 10 times should be enough to get your point across. No one is trying to get you to register your firearms. You can if you want to if you can find someone to accept your form. I just don't know of anyone willing to file it other than a round file. Sorry, but you just can't get any fear response on this one from me.

/----/ "No one is trying to get you to register your firearms. " You can't be serious.
Gun control advocates push to make voter registration the legacy of ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gun...registration.../e4f9bd8a-43d8-11e8-8569-26f...
Apr 21, 2018 - A student wears a shirt printed with a message during a kickoff event for the Vote for Our Lives movement to register voters on Thursday in ...

 

[PredFan]

And I’d rather have a gun for protection so I can survive either.

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

It's a question, yes or no?

It’s irrelevant, but with your obvious reading comprehension handicap, you won’t understand.

It's ok, I know that you're just too much of a weenie to answer because we all know the right answer.

 

[Taz]

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

It's a question, yes or no?

It’s irrelevant, but with your obvious reading comprehension handicap, you won’t understand.

It's ok, I know that you're just too much of a weenie to answer because we all know the right answer.

View attachment 198306

When beaten, resort to memes. Got it.

 

[PredFan]

And I’d rather have a gun for protection so I can survive either.

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

It's a question, yes or no?

It’s irrelevant, but with your obvious reading comprehension handicap, you won’t understand.

It's ok, I know that you're just too much of a weenie to answer because we all know the right answer.

I can’t explain it to you, you do not have a reading comprehension level high enough to understand even the simplest of statements. I was patient and tried but alas, I failed. I’ll waste no more time.

You are dismissed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we go again. Just how many times are you going to keep doing this. One one hand you keep perpetuating the gun "They are trying to take all my guns" culture. And on the other hand, you are glorifying the Mass Shooters. Then you complain that everyone else is glorifying the mass shooters. Newsflash: That someone is YOU.

Now, let's take a look at your Cite. It's listed on the Net as a conspiracy site. It's degree of truth is rated as low. What it does is puts in enough truth to sound true but then scatters falsehoods to take it another direction. The Activist Post is nothing more than a Blog and part of a large group of conspiracy sites. If you stay with it, it puts it's hand out for money. For instance, Dr. Otto Warburg did exist. HE was a Nobel Prize Winner in Nazi Germany. That part is true. But he did NOT find the one and only true cure for cancer. This is where the conspiracy breaks down. He published a few things and was finally debunked in 1962 when he stated that Cancer was only caused by Pollution. He was only partially correct. We know now that some people are born with the cancer built into their dna and even without Pollution, they will end up with Cancer. Meanwhile, the clip continues to scare people that scare already scared people to send them money for this revolutionary cure. This is sad.

Repeal The Second Amendment

You have misrepresented this. The fact remains that the FFS had no idea what would happen AFTER 1850 where our weapons would outgrow our 2nd amendment. The Constitution is a living document. Meaning, it is supposed to be updated as the nation matures. The 2nd amendment was left vague so that it could be updated. It hasn't been. For instance, the first half of it referring to the need for the Organized Militia went by the way in 1917 with the National Guard Act. The 2nd amendment needed to be updated for that. Then our weapons outgrew the safe personal usage of the individual. We now had the full Automatic Weapons, Grenade Launchers and more. And let's not forget the rifle that started it all, the Browning Model 1917 Automatic Rifle. This rifle was so good that the US decided NOT to send it to Europe during WWI in fear that it would be copied by the Germans and used against us. The BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) brought us the M-1, M-14 and Mini-14. But the Civilian versions of the M-1, M-14 and MIni-14 were semi-auto and really made lousy military weapons as they were a bit cumbersome. The Thompson and other Automatic Rifles were found to be just too destructive for civilian life. What brought them down was that fact that they were used in spray and pray and more innocents were being killed than the bad guys that were intended to be killed. Something had to be done.

What was done was the Firearms Act of 1934. Rather than go out and completely outlaw them, they stopped manufacture of them. They also stopped manufacture of replacement parts. You could no longer sell them, transfer them, give them away or even will them to your children. Every time they found one used in a crime, they destroyed the weapon. In about a 10 year time, the Thompson was completely off the streets and out of the Criminals hands. And when they broke, they became a wall hangar. You can sell, give away, bequeath a wall hanger if you disable it from ever being used as a firearm again. Many went into firearms collectors hands who had FFL Licenses who could buy and sell them legally to others with FFL licenses. They weren't banned at all.

The question remains, is the creation of the FFL regulation against the 2nd amendment? Why was it not then but it is now? And do we need to keep the vagueness of the 2nd amendment, repeal it and replace it or just amend it like we have with other amendments? We do need something to protect our personal firearms but we need a clear idea of what we need those firearms to be used for and then match the class of firearms to the need. I can use a Bazooka to hunt deer with but it's not the best tool. But that Remington Model 700 is a much better choice.

Students are parroting the claims and using their platforms as victims of gun violence to push for a ban on guns

Could it be that they just don't want to be next on the kill list? I can see how the Little Girl scares the living hell out of you. She just turned Voting Age as does millions of other graduating High School Seniors that don't wish for their younger brothers, sisters and friends to be the next victims. You can't buy their votes. You can't buy their support. The Bought and Paid for Politicians are having to do a complete rethink. Some are starting to do a rethink. But first they have to sever the pig trough they have been eating at and that is hard to do. Here are most of the students are going for:

1. Increasing the buying age of firearms to 21
2. decreasing the number of rounds in a magazine
3. comprehensive background checks with NO exceptions
4. Classifying firearms to what is for personal protection, hunting and what is not

Look for this to become nationwide state to state. It's happening already. Those Piggies are going to have to go find jobs. Not to worry, the Corporations they have been working for all along have jobs waiting for them. They certainly don't work for the American People. This is what those Young Adults are saying.

Law Enforcement officials are also calling for a ban on guns—which means they would be the only ones with guns

Your site showed just a few seconds of what this Sheriff said. it's called taking it out of context. Here is an interview by a Republican Newsman afterwards.



States are chipping away at the constitutional rights granted by the Second Amendment by passing laws banning guns that have been deemed “assault rifles”

They used Boulder as an example. Once again, misinformation. Yes, the ordinance passed but it's not in affect. They are still trying to hammer out the details. It''s complicated. For instance, some parts of it goes just a bit too far while other parts are just impossible to enforce. While the idea is good, the final product may look completely different than the beginning document.

Congress recently passed legislation that gives federal agencies power over gun control, effectively putting every American’s Second Amendment rights at risk

Horsepucky. The Federall Government has very little rights to regulate firearms outside off the extreme weapons. The States hold those rights.

I just love your scare tactics. And that is all they are. Misinformation of the worst kind. Please stop this nonsense. It's getting people killed.

Why don’t you just go live in a state where you have no right to any firearms?
Most of the United States are getting rid of frivolous laws the firearms, that is a good sign.

Says you. Yet most states do have common sense firearms regulations that you find "Against the 2nd Amendment". Even Florida just passed a few of them. And look for more on the way. And they may come for your guns if they deem you are too unsettled to have them but they won't mine since I pose no threat to society with mine. So be very careful with your posts. The day that you Mentally unhenged can possess weapons may be coming to an end soon.

Na, my firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business

You keep saying that over and over. Once or twice or even 10 times should be enough to get your point across. No one is trying to get you to register your firearms. You can if you want to if you can find someone to accept your form. I just don't know of anyone willing to file it other than a round file. Sorry, but you just can't get any fear response on this one from me.

/----/ "No one is trying to get you to register your firearms. " You can't be serious.
Gun control advocates push to make voter registration the legacy of ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gun...registration.../e4f9bd8a-43d8-11e8-8569-26f...
Apr 21, 2018 - A student wears a shirt printed with a message during a kickoff event for the Vote for Our Lives movement to register voters on Thursday in ...

Students wear all kinds of Tee Shirts that say a lot of things that are controverial. Doesn't mean a thing. They are there for shock value. If you are shocked over them then their job is done. Meanwhile, the rest of us just say, "Isn't that nice" and move on. And we still aren't buying into the fear factor. Sorry to bust your bubble.

 

[LOki]

/-----/ These famous leaders agree with you 100%. What could possibly go wrong?
View attachment 197959

Actually, gun control works in other civilized countries. Maybe when we're civilized for real...

A society that's actually civilized, has no problem with it's members possessing machine guns, rifles, shotguns, handguns, machetes, knives, etc...

Uncivilized societies--whose members are continuously on the brink of bloody savagery over the smallest of trivialities--are those that see civilian disarmament as a solution to mass murder in their streets.

Anti-rights advocates can now stop holding up these nations as civilized societies.

The consequences of gun control legislation are predictable; and have been predicted by the opponents of such legislation every time it's brought up. It is then fair to conclude that those consequences are the actual objective of such measures. Gun control works here... it works exactly as intended. I submit Columbine, Sandy Hook, Pulse, Parkland, etc. as evidence.

The targets of those atrocities were obeying the "common sense" gun laws governing the possession of such at those venues.

There is only one motive in the desire to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who desires to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

The people who desire to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.

Arrest them, prosecute them, and imprison them.. .and all the rest who would see the targets of their violence disarmed and undefended--and you'll see the end of these atrocities.

In one year, US - 9.369 murders with a gun (4th in the world), UK - 14.

Countries Compared by Crime > Murders with firearms. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Rhetorical Tautology.

Everyone accepts that if there were no guns what-so-ever, there'd be no "gun-crime" what-so ever. Only disingenuous idiots attempt to use such tautologies as the foundation for their retarded arguments.

No one argues that there are few murders in the U.S.

No one argues that the murder rate is lowest in the U.S.

The point you're avoiding is that where prohibitionist gun control measure are instituted, those places see no enhanced reduction in violent crime (including murders) and often see an increase in violent crime (including murders.

US had 9,369 murders in one year. The UK had 14 in the same year. What don't you get?

No one makes the argument that there are fewer murders in the U.S. What don't you get?

"enhanced reduction"? You mean from 14? Seriously? And and increase to what? 17, that will make that stat look really bad? Try some honesty for a change.

Yes. Seriously. Murder rates rise and fall in response to a number of variables. What don't you get?

If the rate is rising, and some change is made, and there is no change in the rate of that rising, then it is fair to conclude that the change had no effect on the rate of change. What don't you get?

If the rate is falling, and some change is made, and there is no change in the rate of that falling, then it is fair to conclude that the change had no effect on the rate of change. What don't you get?

In the U.S., gun regulations are (overall) becoming less restrictive, and the rates of gun ownership along with gun sales are rising. In the U.S., the overall violent crime rate is falling. The overall murder rate is falling.

In the nations (as well as localities within the U.S.) where restrictive gun-control legislation has been introduced, the rates of violent crimes went unchanged, or in many cases actually increased... as if violent retards ignored such legislations and (in possession of guns or not) took advantage of the likelihood that their victims voluntarily disarmed themselves to comply with those restrictive gun-control laws.

All of this in direct contradiction to your bullshit paradigm.

What don't you get?

 

[Obejoekenobe]

Yes....they want to ban guns and they want to end the 2nd Amendment...how do we know? They keep telling us they want to ban guns and end the 2nd Amendment....

5 Facts Proving "They Are Coming For Your Guns" Is Not A Conspiracy Theory

1. The mainstream media is openly calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment
It is no secret that every time there are reports of a mass shooting, there are a number of politicians who openly call for gun control, but there has recently been an increase in media outlets joining the anti-gun bandwagon. The Miami Herald published an Op-Ed titled, “Repeal The Second Amendment—It’s Not A Crazy Idea.” Rolling Stone published an explanation on “Why It’s Time To Repeal The Second Amendment.” And USA Today stated, “Repeal The Second Amendment. It’s The Only Way Towards Real Change.”

------

2. Students are parroting the claims and using their platforms as victims of gun violence to push for a ban on guns
Parkland Shooting survivor David Hogg has become the face of the student activist movement against guns, and the demands are troubling. The students are openly supporting a ban on guns that have been deemed “assault rifles,” a ban on high-capacity magazines, a federal background check “on every gun sale,” increasing taxes on gun sales and raising the minimum age to own a gun to 21.

In a speech at a March For Our Lives rally, Stoneman Douglas student Delaney Tarr revealed that even if the students achieve individual bans, they will continue to push until the Second Amendment is fully dismantled. “We will take the big and we will take the small, but we will keep fighting. When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for breadcrumbs. We are here for real change,” she said.
--------

3. Law Enforcement officials are also calling for a ban on guns—which means they would be the only ones with guns
It is no secret that a ban on guns would result in law enforcement officers and criminals being the only individuals who have guns. Daryl Fisher, a candidate for Buncombe County Sheriff in North Carolina, recently addressed the issue of how police would confiscate the firearms, and when proposed with the quote “you’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands,” he shrugged his shoulders and said “OK!”

What are the chances of the 2nd amendment being repealed?

2016 Presidential election 2016 by county...

There you go...

So the chances are slim? If so, doesn’t that make the other four questions moot?

 

[LOki]

Rhetorical Tautology.

Everyone accepts that if there were no guns what-so-ever, there'd be no "gun-crime" what-so ever. Only disingenuous idiots attempt to use such tautologies as the foundation for their retarded arguments.

No one argues that there are few murders in the U.S.

No one argues that the murder rate is lowest in the U.S.

The point you're avoiding is that where prohibitionist gun control measure are instituted, those places see no enhanced reduction in violent crime (including murders) and often see an increase in violent crime (including murders.

US had 9,369 murders in one year. The UK had 14 in the same year. What don't you get? "enhanced reduction"? You mean from 14? Seriously? And and increase to what? 17, that will make that stat look really bad? Try some honesty for a change.

Yes using absolute numbers to compare populations that vary greatly in size

Talk about disingenuous

So the UK is about 700 times smaller then the US? Or is it more?

The only honest way to compare to populations that differ in size is to use ratios not absolute numbers

UK = 65 million people, 14 gun murders.

US = 350 million people, 9,369 gun murders.

You do the math. I'll wait.

Rhetorical Tautology.

Everyone accepts that if there were no guns what-so-ever, there'd be no "gun-crime" what-so ever. Only disingenuous idiots attempt to use such tautologies as the foundation for their retarded arguments.​

 

[Rustic]

Here we go again. Just how many times are you going to keep doing this. One one hand you keep perpetuating the gun "They are trying to take all my guns" culture. And on the other hand, you are glorifying the Mass Shooters. Then you complain that everyone else is glorifying the mass shooters. Newsflash: That someone is YOU.

Now, let's take a look at your Cite. It's listed on the Net as a conspiracy site. It's degree of truth is rated as low. What it does is puts in enough truth to sound true but then scatters falsehoods to take it another direction. The Activist Post is nothing more than a Blog and part of a large group of conspiracy sites. If you stay with it, it puts it's hand out for money. For instance, Dr. Otto Warburg did exist. HE was a Nobel Prize Winner in Nazi Germany. That part is true. But he did NOT find the one and only true cure for cancer. This is where the conspiracy breaks down. He published a few things and was finally debunked in 1962 when he stated that Cancer was only caused by Pollution. He was only partially correct. We know now that some people are born with the cancer built into their dna and even without Pollution, they will end up with Cancer. Meanwhile, the clip continues to scare people that scare already scared people to send them money for this revolutionary cure. This is sad.

Repeal The Second Amendment

You have misrepresented this. The fact remains that the FFS had no idea what would happen AFTER 1850 where our weapons would outgrow our 2nd amendment. The Constitution is a living document. Meaning, it is supposed to be updated as the nation matures. The 2nd amendment was left vague so that it could be updated. It hasn't been. For instance, the first half of it referring to the need for the Organized Militia went by the way in 1917 with the National Guard Act. The 2nd amendment needed to be updated for that. Then our weapons outgrew the safe personal usage of the individual. We now had the full Automatic Weapons, Grenade Launchers and more. And let's not forget the rifle that started it all, the Browning Model 1917 Automatic Rifle. This rifle was so good that the US decided NOT to send it to Europe during WWI in fear that it would be copied by the Germans and used against us. The BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) brought us the M-1, M-14 and Mini-14. But the Civilian versions of the M-1, M-14 and MIni-14 were semi-auto and really made lousy military weapons as they were a bit cumbersome. The Thompson and other Automatic Rifles were found to be just too destructive for civilian life. What brought them down was that fact that they were used in spray and pray and more innocents were being killed than the bad guys that were intended to be killed. Something had to be done.

What was done was the Firearms Act of 1934. Rather than go out and completely outlaw them, they stopped manufacture of them. They also stopped manufacture of replacement parts. You could no longer sell them, transfer them, give them away or even will them to your children. Every time they found one used in a crime, they destroyed the weapon. In about a 10 year time, the Thompson was completely off the streets and out of the Criminals hands. And when they broke, they became a wall hangar. You can sell, give away, bequeath a wall hanger if you disable it from ever being used as a firearm again. Many went into firearms collectors hands who had FFL Licenses who could buy and sell them legally to others with FFL licenses. They weren't banned at all.

The question remains, is the creation of the FFL regulation against the 2nd amendment? Why was it not then but it is now? And do we need to keep the vagueness of the 2nd amendment, repeal it and replace it or just amend it like we have with other amendments? We do need something to protect our personal firearms but we need a clear idea of what we need those firearms to be used for and then match the class of firearms to the need. I can use a Bazooka to hunt deer with but it's not the best tool. But that Remington Model 700 is a much better choice.

Students are parroting the claims and using their platforms as victims of gun violence to push for a ban on guns

Could it be that they just don't want to be next on the kill list? I can see how the Little Girl scares the living hell out of you. She just turned Voting Age as does millions of other graduating High School Seniors that don't wish for their younger brothers, sisters and friends to be the next victims. You can't buy their votes. You can't buy their support. The Bought and Paid for Politicians are having to do a complete rethink. Some are starting to do a rethink. But first they have to sever the pig trough they have been eating at and that is hard to do. Here are most of the students are going for:

1. Increasing the buying age of firearms to 21
2. decreasing the number of rounds in a magazine
3. comprehensive background checks with NO exceptions
4. Classifying firearms to what is for personal protection, hunting and what is not

Look for this to become nationwide state to state. It's happening already. Those Piggies are going to have to go find jobs. Not to worry, the Corporations they have been working for all along have jobs waiting for them. They certainly don't work for the American People. This is what those Young Adults are saying.

Law Enforcement officials are also calling for a ban on guns—which means they would be the only ones with guns

Your site showed just a few seconds of what this Sheriff said. it's called taking it out of context. Here is an interview by a Republican Newsman afterwards.



States are chipping away at the constitutional rights granted by the Second Amendment by passing laws banning guns that have been deemed “assault rifles”

They used Boulder as an example. Once again, misinformation. Yes, the ordinance passed but it's not in affect. They are still trying to hammer out the details. It''s complicated. For instance, some parts of it goes just a bit too far while other parts are just impossible to enforce. While the idea is good, the final product may look completely different than the beginning document.

Congress recently passed legislation that gives federal agencies power over gun control, effectively putting every American’s Second Amendment rights at risk

Horsepucky. The Federall Government has very little rights to regulate firearms outside off the extreme weapons. The States hold those rights.

I just love your scare tactics. And that is all they are. Misinformation of the worst kind. Please stop this nonsense. It's getting people killed.

Why don’t you just go live in a state where you have no right to any firearms?
Most of the United States are getting rid of frivolous laws the firearms, that is a good sign.

Says you. Yet most states do have common sense firearms regulations that you find "Against the 2nd Amendment". Even Florida just passed a few of them. And look for more on the way. And they may come for your guns if they deem you are too unsettled to have them but they won't mine since I pose no threat to society with mine. So be very careful with your posts. The day that you Mentally unhenged can possess weapons may be coming to an end soon.

Na, my firearm ownership is none of the federal governments business

You keep saying that over and over. Once or twice or even 10 times should be enough to get your point across. No one is trying to get you to register your firearms. You can if you want to if you can find someone to accept your form. I just don't know of anyone willing to file it other than a round file. Sorry, but you just can't get any fear response on this one from me.

Like I said why don’t you just move to a state that denies firearm ownership, Instead of bitching about everyone else’s right to own firearms?

 

[Taz]

But you'd rather be attacked by a knife, than a gun, right?

That’s not really relevant is it?

It's a question, yes or no?

It’s irrelevant, but with your obvious reading comprehension handicap, you won’t understand.

It's ok, I know that you're just too much of a weenie to answer because we all know the right answer.

I can’t explain it to you, you do not have a reading comprehension level high enough to understand even the simplest of statements. I was patient and tried but alas, I failed. I’ll waste no more time.

You are dismissed.

You’d prefer to be attacked by someone with a knife. Thanks for playing.

 

[Taz]

Actually, gun control works in other civilized countries. Maybe when we're civilized for real...

A society that's actually civilized, has no problem with it's members possessing machine guns, rifles, shotguns, handguns, machetes, knives, etc...

Uncivilized societies--whose members are continuously on the brink of bloody savagery over the smallest of trivialities--are those that see civilian disarmament as a solution to mass murder in their streets.

Anti-rights advocates can now stop holding up these nations as civilized societies.

The consequences of gun control legislation are predictable; and have been predicted by the opponents of such legislation every time it's brought up. It is then fair to conclude that those consequences are the actual objective of such measures. Gun control works here... it works exactly as intended. I submit Columbine, Sandy Hook, Pulse, Parkland, etc. as evidence.

The targets of those atrocities were obeying the "common sense" gun laws governing the possession of such at those venues.

There is only one motive in the desire to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who desires to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

The people who desire to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.

Arrest them, prosecute them, and imprison them.. .and all the rest who would see the targets of their violence disarmed and undefended--and you'll see the end of these atrocities.

In one year, US - 9.369 murders with a gun (4th in the world), UK - 14.

Countries Compared by Crime > Murders with firearms. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Rhetorical Tautology.

Everyone accepts that if there were no guns what-so-ever, there'd be no "gun-crime" what-so ever. Only disingenuous idiots attempt to use such tautologies as the foundation for their retarded arguments.

No one argues that there are few murders in the U.S.

No one argues that the murder rate is lowest in the U.S.

The point you're avoiding is that where prohibitionist gun control measure are instituted, those places see no enhanced reduction in violent crime (including murders) and often see an increase in violent crime (including murders.

US had 9,369 murders in one year. The UK had 14 in the same year. What don't you get?

No one makes the argument that there are fewer murders in the U.S. What don't you get?

"enhanced reduction"? You mean from 14? Seriously? And and increase to what? 17, that will make that stat look really bad? Try some honesty for a change.

Yes. Seriously. Murder rates rise and fall in response to a number of variables. What don't you get?

If the rate is rising, and some change is made, and there is no change in the rate of that rising, then it is fair to conclude that the change had no effect on the rate of change. What don't you get?

If the rate is falling, and some change is made, and there is no change in the rate of that falling, then it is fair to conclude that the change had no effect on the rate of change. What don't you get?

In the U.S., gun regulations are (overall) becoming less restrictive, and the rates of gun ownership along with gun sales are rising. In the U.S., the overall violent crime rate is falling. The overall murder rate is falling.

In the nations (as well as localities within the U.S.) where restrictive gun-control legislation has been introduced, the rates of violent crimes went unchanged, or in many cases actually increased... as if violent retards ignored such legislations and (in possession of guns or not) took advantage of the likelihood that their victims voluntarily disarmed themselves to comply with those restrictive gun-control laws.

All of this in direct contradiction to your bullshit paradigm.

What don't you get?

You can’t understand that gun control laws keep the rate low? Um...ok.