Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
Seeing as how gun nuts are a minority, what you propose in jest is possible.
And IF it were to happen, the fault would be that of the NRA an the self professed gun nuts.
Cause you all wont do jack shit to stop the carnage. Matter of fact, you all just write if off as inevitable.
Guns kill people. With lots of guns, lots of people will get killed.
Simple math. Not everyone thinks all that killing to entertain your fantasies is a good idea.
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?
Stalker??? LMAO. Better hug your gun.
No dude. You are just to easy to be made to look the fool.
You want me to ease up on you? Just ask.
your nutshow 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,???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.
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.
Your an imbecile.
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?
Stalker??? LMAO. Better hug your gun.
No dude. You are just to easy to be made to look the fool.
You want me to ease up on you? Just ask.
I actually don't own one, what I support is my right to get one if I so choose. Right now in NYC I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just for a home pistol permit. That is infringement. Until I get my own rights back, fuck any more gun laws.
And if this is the best you got, I suggest the Hello Kitty board may be more your speed.
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.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.
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.
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.[
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?
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?
Stalker??? LMAO. Better hug your gun.
No dude. You are just to easy to be made to look the fool.
You want me to ease up on you? Just ask.
I actually don't own one, what I support is my right to get one if I so choose. Right now in NYC I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just for a home pistol permit. That is infringement. Until I get my own rights back, fuck any more gun laws.
And if this is the best you got, I suggest the Hello Kitty board may be more your speed.
Escape New York.
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?
Stalker??? LMAO. Better hug your gun.
No dude. You are just to easy to be made to look the fool.
You want me to ease up on you? Just ask.
I actually don't own one, what I support is my right to get one if I so choose. Right now in NYC I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just for a home pistol permit. That is infringement. Until I get my own rights back, fuck any more gun laws.
And if this is the best you got, I suggest the Hello Kitty board may be more your speed.
Escape New York.
I wish. Too many family commitments.
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?
Stalker??? LMAO. Better hug your gun.
No dude. You are just to easy to be made to look the fool.
You want me to ease up on you? Just ask.
I actually don't own one, what I support is my right to get one if I so choose. Right now in NYC I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just for a home pistol permit. That is infringement. Until I get my own rights back, fuck any more gun laws.
And if this is the best you got, I suggest the Hello Kitty board may be more your speed.
Escape New York.
I wish. Too many family commitments.
Yeah i hear ya, but if you do decide to leave, many in your family will likely follow you. Someone in the family has to be the one to make the first move. That's how it usually works. You gotta be bold. You can leave and still be with your family. It can be done.
Stalker??? LMAO. Better hug your gun.
No dude. You are just to easy to be made to look the fool.
You want me to ease up on you? Just ask.
I actually don't own one, what I support is my right to get one if I so choose. Right now in NYC I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just for a home pistol permit. That is infringement. Until I get my own rights back, fuck any more gun laws.
And if this is the best you got, I suggest the Hello Kitty board may be more your speed.
Escape New York.
I wish. Too many family commitments.
Yeah i hear ya, but if you do decide to leave, many in your family will likely follow you. Someone in the family has to be the one to make the first move. That's how it usually works. You gotta be bold. You can leave and still be with your family. It can be done.
or I can get NYC to finally recognize my 2nd amendment rights.
The more this crap goes on, the more I am tempted to apply and then run to the local 2nd amendment groups to file suit when they deny my permit request.
So your argument is we need more people with guns, in spite of the ludicrous logic involved.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....
So your argument is we need more people with guns, in spite of the ludicrous logic involved.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....
And if you have thoroughly bought into simplistic thinking, I'm not surprised to hear that time worn argument about Switzerland and WWII. Do you really believe that 400,000 Swiss hunters scared the bejesus out of flights of Stukas and ranks of Panzer tanks?
Bumper sticker logic such as yours is one of the ancillary problems with gun control. Prying the skulls of partisans open enough to cram the truth in is as much a mountain to climb as ridding our society of weapons of war.
I think you are in error he is the bandunder bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon
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
The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.
and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."
so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..
I have no idea how old you are, but in my lifetime the idea of walking around with a loaded gun was once an insane and irresponsible action. It wasn't until the advent of mass produced and mass marketed military style weapons do we have a problem with mass shootings. The rise of the gun culture, fueled with testosterone driven fantasies of being the hero gunslinger produced the carnage of the mass shooting. They were abhorations until the NRA told America that we should be packing heat.So your argument is we need more people with guns, in spite of the ludicrous logic involved.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....
And if you have thoroughly bought into simplistic thinking, I'm not surprised to hear that time worn argument about Switzerland and WWII. Do you really believe that 400,000 Swiss hunters scared the bejesus out of flights of Stukas and ranks of Panzer tanks?
Bumper sticker logic such as yours is one of the ancillary problems with gun control. Prying the skulls of partisans open enough to cram the truth in is as much a mountain to climb as ridding our society of weapons of war.
You are wrong, of course......you guys created gun free zones...where normal gun owners, law abiding people who do not shoot people with their guns, can't bring their guns.....you created the problem....you made specific areas where no guns are allowed, at all, if you are a normal person....that means that only the abnormal, violent sociopaths can go there with guns and murder people with no one to stop them till the police arrive minutes later.....
So you are wrong..we want guns in the one place mass shooters go...gun free zones...so that the mass shooters can be stopped and lives can be saved.
And Switzerland wasn't filled with hunters...the entire population was ready to fight..unlike the rest of Europe...
THE SWISS WERE PREPARED TO FIGHT FACISM TO THE BITTER END | FRONTLINE | PBS
That is why the Nazis despised Switzerland. Joseph Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" where "sentiment has turned very much against us." Adolf Hitler decided that "all the rubbish of small nations still existing in Europe must be liquidated," even if it meant he would later "be attacked as the 'Butcher of the Swiss.'"
The 1940 Nazi invasion plan, Operation Tannenbaum, was not executed, and SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot. This did not stop the Gestapo from preparing lists of Swiss to be liquidated once the Nazis overran the country.
The other European nations were easily toppled and had little means to wage a partisan war against the occupation. Once their standing armies were defeated, the governments capitulated and the populaces were defenseless.
Only in Switzerland was the entire populace armed and prepared to wage a relentless guerrilla war against an invader. When the war began in 1939, Switzerland mobilized 435,000 citizen soldiers out of a population of 4.2 million. Production figures for Swiss service rifles, which had firepower equal to those of the Germans, demonstrate an ample supply of small arms. Swiss militiamen were instructed to disregard any alleged "official" surrender as enemy propaganda and, if necessary, to fight individually. This meant that a nation of sharpshooters would be sniping at German soldiers at long ranges from every mountain.
While neutral, Switzerland was prepared to fight a Nazi invasion to the end. The celebrated Swiss Gen. Henri Guisan developed the strategy known as defense du reduit--an initial opposition followed by a retreat into the Alps, where a relentless war to the death would be waged. Most Swiss strongly opposed Nazism. Death sentences were issued for fifth-column activities, and proclamations against anti-Semitism were passed at various official levels. There was no Holocaust on Swiss soil, something that can not be said for France, the Netherlands, Poland or most of Europe.
