Cruz Correct About Gun Control Laws

[2aguy]

How many more times are we going to accept mass shootings?

We can honestly look at the carnage wrought by mass shootings and say 'people with guns did this' and then some Conservative will inevitably say 'therefore we need more people with guns!'. Are we just supposed to accept this ham handed logic without question?

Pf course the corollary to this twisted logic is: more guns makes us safer.

If this were true, given the fact that we have a population of 350,000,000 in this nation and there are 300,000,000 guns in the hands of civilians, by their logic, shouldn't we be the safest nation on earth?

How many more times are we expected to go along with arguments that have proven disastrously false?

No.....you guys made gun free zones...which means that in those zones there are no guns.....for normal people......law abiding people do not carry guns into gun free zones because it is against the law in most places or they are being polite and obeying the wishes of the business stupid enough to make itself a gun free zone.

so it isn't too many guns....it is not allowing normal gun owners to carry guns into public spaces....which draws mass shooters.

Mass shooters are looking for victims...not a shoot out...they do not target police stations or military firing ranges...both places where people will shoot back.

As Americans have bought, own and carry guns...there are 13 million people carrying guns today, our gun murder rate is going down......those countries that confiscated guns...are starting to see increases in their gun crime.....mainly because they are importing violent people from other countries....


And keep in mind....Europe was a gun free zone for civilians when the Germans took over...and 12 million unarmed, innocent men, women and children of all ages were murdered.....because their countries were gun free zones...

The one country that didn't get invaded..Switzerland....had over 400,000 civilians under arms...and hitler passed on attacking it....

 

[2aguy]

How many more times are we going to accept mass shootings?

We can honestly look at the carnage wrought by mass shootings and say 'people with guns did this' and then some Conservative will inevitably say 'therefore we need more people with guns!'. Are we just supposed to accept this ham handed logic without question?

Pf course the corollary to this twisted logic is: more guns makes us safer.

If this were true, given the fact that we have a population of 350,000,000 in this nation and there are 300,000,000 guns in the hands of civilians, by their logic, shouldn't we be the safest nation on earth?

How many more times are we expected to go along with arguments that have proven disastrously false?

How many more times are we expected to go along with arguments that have proven disastrously false?

The real arguments that are patently false..and you can tell by the dead bodies...

--That gun control laws actually target criminals and mass shooters, and not normal gun owners.

--That gun control laws will keep criminals and mass shooters from getting guns (For reference see France..Paris, a few weeks ago)

--That gun free zones keep people safer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

obama had nothing to do with the Irs abuses and you can't show us here where he did... you're just ranting about something that you thought he did ... as for the latest list, its obvious you don't know how it works... home land didn't do their due diligence ... from my understanding Home land doesn't look into every person Emails to find out if they are terrorist ... they take the information that they can find on that person ...again hussein had nothing to do with that home land did ... home land goes by the criteria that is given to them by the congress ... when home land was set up it was set up by the bush administration ... so you should show your anger at them not Hussein who had noting to do with how one is allowed to be admitted to this country... why is it always hussein fault when things go wrong with you???
P.S.
MSM has asked many time how were they allowed into this country... they got a answer... that answer was that home land didn't find anything on them that would have cause for them not to be allowed into the country... but after the fact when they started looking in to their email accounts, they found that they were supporting terrorist ... this wasn't a thing for home land to look up .... they followed all their procedures and found nothing... I suspect that they will now start looking at emails ... all of this was said on msm ... thats where I got it ... so it appears you didn't get that message ... or were you looking for them to say obama let them in without any checks because he's a muslim .... is that what you're looking for??? a lie to justify your hate

Hussein's the President. It's his show. It's all on him. And aren't you even a little bit curious about who and why they're on his 'Terror-Watch' and 'No-Fly' lists? And why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists? Aren't you just a bit curious?

no I'm not one bit curious ... I have a brain ... I know home land allows people to come into the U.S. .... I know obama has no control over that ... the IRS can do what they want, look at whom ever they want, and Obama has no control or say over that... they have guide lines to follow... if they don't follow their guide lines they they can be held accountable ... if they go out of their guide lines they can be held accountable for that ... the president isn't responsible for everything that happens in this country no president is ... but when it does it is up to the president to try and change the laws ... as far as I seen he has tried but failed by the republican controlled congress ... hell he just tried to pass a law putting people who are on the no fly list from being able to buy a gun ... the republicans shot that down so its ok for a terrorist to buy and gun here in the states but he can't fly... go figure

He uses the IRS as a weapon against political dissenters. He's a criminal. So i am very skeptical of who he has on his lists. And you still haven't answered my question. Why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists?

it was brought to the attention of the employees by the person in charge of the IRS not hussein... the IRS had them looking into 501c's ...to see if they were Dems run 501c in or republicans running it, it didn't matter ... they wanted to see if they were following IRS laws... in that year there were 10 republicans 501 c's to ever 1 dem 501c you seem to be a nut case

Wrong....conservative groups got special treatment......they had their applications delayed

Did they? Conservative political groups had trouble getting non-political tax status?

lol very interesting...

 

[2aguy]

Hussein's the President. It's his show. It's all on him. And aren't you even a little bit curious about who and why they're on his 'Terror-Watch' and 'No-Fly' lists? And why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists? Aren't you just a bit curious?

no I'm not one bit curious ... I have a brain ... I know home land allows people to come into the U.S. .... I know obama has no control over that ... the IRS can do what they want, look at whom ever they want, and Obama has no control or say over that... they have guide lines to follow... if they don't follow their guide lines they they can be held accountable ... if they go out of their guide lines they can be held accountable for that ... the president isn't responsible for everything that happens in this country no president is ... but when it does it is up to the president to try and change the laws ... as far as I seen he has tried but failed by the republican controlled congress ... hell he just tried to pass a law putting people who are on the no fly list from being able to buy a gun ... the republicans shot that down so its ok for a terrorist to buy and gun here in the states but he can't fly... go figure

He uses the IRS as a weapon against political dissenters. He's a criminal. So i am very skeptical of who he has on his lists. And you still haven't answered my question. Why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists?

it was brought to the attention of the employees by the person in charge of the IRS not hussein... the IRS had them looking into 501c's ...to see if they were Dems run 501c in or republicans running it, it didn't matter ... they wanted to see if they were following IRS laws... in that year there were 10 republicans 501 c's to ever 1 dem 501c you seem to be a nut case

Wrong....conservative groups got special treatment......they had their applications delayed

Did they? Conservative political groups had trouble getting non-political tax status?

lol very interesting...

Conservative groups trying to get their legal, tax free status were held up by the IRS.....and had to sit out the 2016 Presidential Campaign....

 

[NYcarbineer]

no I'm not one bit curious ... I have a brain ... I know home land allows people to come into the U.S. .... I know obama has no control over that ... the IRS can do what they want, look at whom ever they want, and Obama has no control or say over that... they have guide lines to follow... if they don't follow their guide lines they they can be held accountable ... if they go out of their guide lines they can be held accountable for that ... the president isn't responsible for everything that happens in this country no president is ... but when it does it is up to the president to try and change the laws ... as far as I seen he has tried but failed by the republican controlled congress ... hell he just tried to pass a law putting people who are on the no fly list from being able to buy a gun ... the republicans shot that down so its ok for a terrorist to buy and gun here in the states but he can't fly... go figure

He uses the IRS as a weapon against political dissenters. He's a criminal. So i am very skeptical of who he has on his lists. And you still haven't answered my question. Why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists?

it was brought to the attention of the employees by the person in charge of the IRS not hussein... the IRS had them looking into 501c's ...to see if they were Dems run 501c in or republicans running it, it didn't matter ... they wanted to see if they were following IRS laws... in that year there were 10 republicans 501 c's to ever 1 dem 501c you seem to be a nut case

Wrong....conservative groups got special treatment......they had their applications delayed

Did they? Conservative political groups had trouble getting non-political tax status?

lol very interesting...

Conservative groups trying to get their legal, tax free status were held up by the IRS.....and had to sit out the 2016 Presidential Campaign....

Those tax breaks are for groups that are NOT political.

 

[2aguy]

He uses the IRS as a weapon against political dissenters. He's a criminal. So i am very skeptical of who he has on his lists. And you still haven't answered my question. Why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists?

it was brought to the attention of the employees by the person in charge of the IRS not hussein... the IRS had them looking into 501c's ...to see if they were Dems run 501c in or republicans running it, it didn't matter ... they wanted to see if they were following IRS laws... in that year there were 10 republicans 501 c's to ever 1 dem 501c you seem to be a nut case

Wrong....conservative groups got special treatment......they had their applications delayed

Did they? Conservative political groups had trouble getting non-political tax status?

lol very interesting...

Conservative groups trying to get their legal, tax free status were held up by the IRS.....and had to sit out the 2016 Presidential Campaign....

Those tax breaks are for groups that are NOT political.

Wrong......try researching the topic....

 

[2aguy]

He uses the IRS as a weapon against political dissenters. He's a criminal. So i am very skeptical of who he has on his lists. And you still haven't answered my question. Why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists?

it was brought to the attention of the employees by the person in charge of the IRS not hussein... the IRS had them looking into 501c's ...to see if they were Dems run 501c in or republicans running it, it didn't matter ... they wanted to see if they were following IRS laws... in that year there were 10 republicans 501 c's to ever 1 dem 501c you seem to be a nut case

Wrong....conservative groups got special treatment......they had their applications delayed

Did they? Conservative political groups had trouble getting non-political tax status?

lol very interesting...

Conservative groups trying to get their legal, tax free status were held up by the IRS.....and had to sit out the 2016 Presidential Campaign....

Those tax breaks are for groups that are NOT political.

Here you go...

IRS scoreboard: 100 percent of “targeted” liberal groups were approved, conservatives languished

 

[NYcarbineer]

it was brought to the attention of the employees by the person in charge of the IRS not hussein... the IRS had them looking into 501c's ...to see if they were Dems run 501c in or republicans running it, it didn't matter ... they wanted to see if they were following IRS laws... in that year there were 10 republicans 501 c's to ever 1 dem 501c you seem to be a nut case

Wrong....conservative groups got special treatment......they had their applications delayed

Did they? Conservative political groups had trouble getting non-political tax status?

lol very interesting...

Conservative groups trying to get their legal, tax free status were held up by the IRS.....and had to sit out the 2016 Presidential Campaign....

Those tax breaks are for groups that are NOT political.

Wrong......try researching the topic....

I did the years ago when this topic was timely and you are dead wrong. As usual.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Cruz Correct About Gun Control Laws'

Straw man fallacy.

This is the same as being 'correct' by stating that aspirin won't cure brain cancer.

No one has made the 'argument' that a given gun control measure or measures are a 'panacea' for all gun crimes and violence, including mass shootings.

 

[Timmy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Ok, so they're conceding that we have no defense against mass shootings. And yet, in case the case of ISIS type mass shootings, these people want a perpetual war against Islam.

They are effectively guaranteeing Americans a perpetuity of San B type massacres if their policies rule.

No.....we have pointed out the way to stop mass shootings...get rid of gun free zones.....the places where shooters go to murder people who are unarmed by law......

That and greater intelligence work......and not stygmatizing people who speak out.

And let's see how you do......which gun laws would have stopped any of the mass shooters......?

That depends . Do we know where they got the ARs yet?

 

[2aguy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Ok, so they're conceding that we have no defense against mass shootings. And yet, in case the case of ISIS type mass shootings, these people want a perpetual war against Islam.

They are effectively guaranteeing Americans a perpetuity of San B type massacres if their policies rule.

No.....we have pointed out the way to stop mass shootings...get rid of gun free zones.....the places where shooters go to murder people who are unarmed by law......

That and greater intelligence work......and not stygmatizing people who speak out.

And let's see how you do......which gun laws would have stopped any of the mass shooters......?

That depends . Do we know where they got the ARs yet?

Yes...they were bought by their friend who is now suspected of being an accomplice...he passed all the gun laws to buy the rifles.........and of course they would have passed the same gun laws if they had bought the rifles.......and they did buy pistols...which could have just as easily been use to kill those people...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Rustic]

Socialist/Muslim/terrorist same diff, so what's your point??

 

[paulitician]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Ok, so they're conceding that we have no defense against mass shootings. And yet, in case the case of ISIS type mass shootings, these people want a perpetual war against Islam.

They are effectively guaranteeing Americans a perpetuity of San B type massacres if their policies rule.

Rebuild Hussein's dismantled Immigration System and secure the border. Any Politician propsosing that, has my full support. There's no need to dismantle our Constitution too.

Criminals will get across the border just like criminals will get guns.

Like i said, Hussein dismantled our Immigration System. It will have to be rebuilt. It's completely unnecessary to dismantle our Constitution too.

how did the hussein dismantle the immigration system??? we still have immigration system ... from my understand this president has deported more illegals then any president .... I know people whose parents came here illegal, whose children were born here, he has made it so their parents can stay and not be deported ... unless they are criminals they go ... he has done that ... but to say he dismantled the immigrations system is a bit much on your part ... where do you get this shit from,???

Time to clean up Hussein's awful Immigration mess. Restore the law and secure our border. I'll only support candidates who propose doing that.

 

[paulitician]

Ok, so they're conceding that we have no defense against mass shootings. And yet, in case the case of ISIS type mass shootings, these people want a perpetual war against Islam.

They are effectively guaranteeing Americans a perpetuity of San B type massacres if their policies rule.

Rebuild Hussein's dismantled Immigration System and secure the border. Any Politician propsosing that, has my full support. There's no need to dismantle our Constitution too.

Criminals will get across the border just like criminals will get guns.

Like i said, Hussein dismantled our Immigration System. It will have to be rebuilt. It's completely unnecessary to dismantle our Constitution too.

how did the hussein dismantle the immigration system??? we still have immigration system ... from my understand this president has deported more illegals then any president .... I know people whose parents came here illegal, whose children were born here, he has made it so their parents can stay and not be deported ... unless they are criminals they go ... he has done that ... but to say he dismantled the immigrations system is a bit much on your part ... where do you get this shit from,???

Have you read the legal requirements for immigrating to the US legally? None of these illegals qualify, by law they should all be deported yet Obama ignores the law and makes up is own damn immigration rules bypassing congress, the law, and the courts.

Yeah, time to end Illegal Immigration. Most Americans support legal immigration. They just want the Rule of Law restored and our border secured. Hopefully we'll get a leader who'll at least attempt to do that. Hopefully they can repair Hussein's awful damage.

 

[paulitician]

What's the criteria? Do you know? Judging by Hussein's past history of IRS abuses, i'm very curious about who and why they're on his lists. And why weren't these latest Terrorists in California on any of his lists? That's a question the MSM still hasn't asked.

obama had nothing to do with the Irs abuses and you can't show us here where he did... you're just ranting about something that you thought he did ... as for the latest list, its obvious you don't know how it works... home land didn't do their due diligence ... from my understanding Home land doesn't look into every person Emails to find out if they are terrorist ... they take the information that they can find on that person ...again hussein had nothing to do with that home land did ... home land goes by the criteria that is given to them by the congress ... when home land was set up it was set up by the bush administration ... so you should show your anger at them not Hussein who had noting to do with how one is allowed to be admitted to this country... why is it always hussein fault when things go wrong with you???
P.S.
MSM has asked many time how were they allowed into this country... they got a answer... that answer was that home land didn't find anything on them that would have cause for them not to be allowed into the country... but after the fact when they started looking in to their email accounts, they found that they were supporting terrorist ... this wasn't a thing for home land to look up .... they followed all their procedures and found nothing... I suspect that they will now start looking at emails ... all of this was said on msm ... thats where I got it ... so it appears you didn't get that message ... or were you looking for them to say obama let them in without any checks because he's a muslim .... is that what you're looking for??? a lie to justify your hate

Hussein's the President. It's his show. It's all on him. And aren't you even a little bit curious about who and why they're on his 'Terror-Watch' and 'No-Fly' lists? And why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists? Aren't you just a bit curious?

no I'm not one bit curious ... I have a brain ... I know home land allows people to come into the U.S. .... I know obama has no control over that ... the IRS can do what they want, look at whom ever they want, and Obama has no control or say over that... they have guide lines to follow... if they don't follow their guide lines they they can be held accountable ... if they go out of their guide lines they can be held accountable for that ... the president isn't responsible for everything that happens in this country no president is ... but when it does it is up to the president to try and change the laws ... as far as I seen he has tried but failed by the republican controlled congress ... hell he just tried to pass a law putting people who are on the no fly list from being able to buy a gun ... the republicans shot that down so its ok for a terrorist to buy and gun here in the states but he can't fly... go figure

He uses the IRS as a weapon against political dissenters. He's a criminal. So i am very skeptical of who he has on his lists. And you still haven't answered my question. Why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists?

it was brought to the attention of the employees by the person in charge of the IRS not hussein... the IRS had them looking into 501c's ...to see if they were Dems run 501c in or republicans running it, it didn't matter ... they wanted to see if they were following IRS laws... in that year there were 10 republicans 501 c's to ever 1 dem 501c you seem to be a nut case

They were attacks on political dissenters. And Hussein knew about it. In fact, he likely ordered it.

 

[Nosmo King]

How many more times are we going to accept mass shootings?

We can honestly look at the carnage wrought by mass shootings and say 'people with guns did this' and then some Conservative will inevitably say 'therefore we need more people with guns!'. Are we just supposed to accept this ham handed logic without question?

Pf course the corollary to this twisted logic is: more guns makes us safer.

If this were true, given the fact that we have a population of 350,000,000 in this nation and there are 300,000,000 guns in the hands of civilians, by their logic, shouldn't we be the safest nation on earth?

How many more times are we expected to go along with arguments that have proven disastrously false?

How many more times are we expected to go along with arguments that have proven disastrously false?

The real arguments that are patently false..and you can tell by the dead bodies...

--That gun control laws actually target criminals and mass shooters, and not normal gun owners.

--That gun control laws will keep criminals and mass shooters from getting guns (For reference see France..Paris, a few weeks ago)

--That gun free zones keep people safer.

We should cut the gun supply off at its roots: the gun manufacturers. They have mass produced weapons of war and marketed them to a civilian consumer. We must stop the manufacture, sale, distribution, importation of weapons designed for a 'well regulated militia'. Long barrel guns with semi-automatic firing systems are the most popular weapons used in mass shootings. Handguns fitted with large capacity magazines and semi-automatic firing systems are the weapon of choice on urban streets.

Before the advent of these weapons in civilian hands, we had a very small rate of mass shootings. The technology and callousness with which it has been sold has brought us to this tragic point.

Gun owners are all too willing to become the gunslinger hero because they see it happen in the cinema. Their underdeveloped sense of marksmanship and capabilities means more bullets will be flying around in a panicked and confused situation. We cannot be anchored to testosterone fueled vigilantes anymore than we can afford to have weapons of war on our streets.

 

[martybegan]

How many more times are we going to accept mass shootings?

We can honestly look at the carnage wrought by mass shootings and say 'people with guns did this' and then some Conservative will inevitably say 'therefore we need more people with guns!'. Are we just supposed to accept this ham handed logic without question?

Pf course the corollary to this twisted logic is: more guns makes us safer.

If this were true, given the fact that we have a population of 350,000,000 in this nation and there are 300,000,000 guns in the hands of civilians, by their logic, shouldn't we be the safest nation on earth?

How many more times are we expected to go along with arguments that have proven disastrously false?

How many more times are we expected to go along with arguments that have proven disastrously false?

The real arguments that are patently false..and you can tell by the dead bodies...

--That gun control laws actually target criminals and mass shooters, and not normal gun owners.

--That gun control laws will keep criminals and mass shooters from getting guns (For reference see France..Paris, a few weeks ago)

--That gun free zones keep people safer.

We should cut the gun supply off at its roots: the gun manufacturers. They have mass produced weapons of war and marketed them to a civilian consumer. We must stop the manufacture, sale, distribution, importation of weapons designed for a 'well regulated militia'. Long barrel guns with semi-automatic firing systems are the most popular weapons used in mass shootings. Handguns fitted with large capacity magazines and semi-automatic firing systems are the weapon of choice on urban streets.

Before the advent of these weapons in civilian hands, we had a very small rate of mass shootings. The technology and callousness with which it has been sold has brought us to this tragic point.

Gun owners are all too willing to become the gunslinger hero because they see it happen in the cinema. Their underdeveloped sense of marksmanship and capabilities means more bullets will be flying around in a panicked and confused situation. We cannot be anchored to testosterone fueled vigilantes anymore than we can afford to have weapons of war on our streets.

Then work to repeal the 2nd amendment. Until then piss off.

 

[Wilbur Right]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".

I dont see armed citizens as a threat.
I see them as living in a fantasy world.

The biggest fantasy is that gun lovers believe that they NEED to have guns to stop a tyranical government. That is some delusional funny shit right there.

The second fantay is how, if just everyone was armed, when those bad guys come a calling, shooting their AR15s as quick at they can pull the trigger, that all of a sudden, the gun lover will appear with his .380 auto and put a stop to that shooting shit.

Thats an active fantasy most gun lovers entertain.

So yea. I am not afraid of gun lovers.
But I do like to make fun of their fantasies.

You do have both of those hero fantasies though. Right?

 

[martybegan]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".

I dont see armed citizens as a threat.
I see them as living in a fantasy world.

The biggest fantasy is that gun lovers believe that they NEED to have guns to stop a tyranical government. That is some delusional funny shit right there.

The second fantay is how, if just everyone was armed, when those bad guys come a calling, shooting their AR15s as quick at they can pull the trigger, that all of a sudden, the gun lover will appear with his .380 auto and put a stop to that shooting shit.

Thats an active fantasy most gun lovers entertain.

So yea. I am not afraid of gun lovers.
But I do like to make fun of their fantasies.

You do have both of those hero fantasies though. Right?

Kind of like the fantasy that just putting up "gun free zone" signs makes the people in there safe, right?

2nd thread where you are replying to one of my posts, out of the blue.

Do I have myself a Stalker?