Note to Gun-Control Liberals: You Can’t Handle the Truth

[2aguy]

Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.

Nice kids. Who are they?

I figured.
You know that Connecticut retained the ban on assault weapons, right? So if you were thinking this was a "gotcha" where you posted pics of dead kids to win an argument, you've proven the opposite. An AWB doesnt make anyone any safer.
Looks like you've been pwned like the little ignorant bitch you are.

Victims of gun free zones created by anti gunners.....did the gun free zone keep out the killer?

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo..

 

[2aguy]

Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.

They havce nothing. And when you point out what the want wont help anyone they respond we need to "do something." Libs are driven by intentions. Conservatives are driven by results.

And body counts.

Here is the truth and reality....in a country of over 320 million people...gun murder and accidental gun deaths of children 14 and under...from the CDC table 10 final death statistics....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Kids murdered by guns....

under 1: 12
age 1-4: 39

age 5-14: 142

total gun murder of children.....193



Kids murdered by other means...

under 1: 270
age 1-4: 298
age 5-14: 135
murder of children by other means.....703


Now, if even if you include gun accidents into the total.....

Accidental death by gun for children....

under 1: 3
age 1-4: 27
age 5-14: 39

Total accidental gun death for kids 2013....69


Again...stop reading that crap from the anti gunners...they are lying to you ....

Total gun related deaths for children under age 14...

262

In a country of over 320 million people......

 

[FA_Q2]

I am a hard nosed realist. Why is it some of you are covering for the abusive use of guns? Guns are NOT protecting us, they are harming us. And that is a fact, that is real. You people in the NRA want to live in a dreamland want to pretend guns are going to solve everything? It just isn't real, it's magic realism, Gun proponents are living in never never land.

If you were a realist then you would look at the data that shows gun bans do nothing to protect people.

So if automatic weapons were as easy to purchase as a quart of milk, all across America, that would what?

Make things better?

Perhaps I should qualify then - FURTHER gun control will not improve things at all. I don't know what the effect of automatic weapons being easier to buy would have because there is little data on that - there are not a lot of places where automatic weapons are regularly available.

Fully automatic weapons, by the way, are not as effective as some seem to believe. In general, laying in on a trigger, no matter how crowded the area, is only going to ensure that you hit nothing at all rather than hitting a lot of something.

Military use automatic weapons for suppression effect or hard mount them where the massive kick can be mitigated.

 

[American_Jihad]

The 'Gun Control' Farce
Thomas Sowell | Oct 13, 2015
​

President Obama's intrusion into the mourning community of Roseburg, Oregon, in order to promote his political crusade for stronger gun control laws, is part of a pattern of his using various other sites of shooting rampages in the past to promote this long-standing crusade of the political left.

The zealotry of gun control advocates might make some sense if they had any serious evidence that more restrictive gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes. But they seldom even discuss the issue in terms of empirical evidence.

...

The zealots act as if they just know -- somehow -- that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

...

Thomas Sowell - The 'Gun Control' Farce

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am a hard nosed realist.

...

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

What? You are even less coherent tonight than usual. Reagan didnt ban anything.

Reagan banned the individual purchase, sale, and possession of all automatic weapons made after 1986.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

What? You are even less coherent tonight than usual. Reagan didnt ban anything.

Reagan banned the individual purchase, sale, and possession of all automatic weapons made after 1986.

No he didnt. I already explained what he did do. You're just too obtuse to understand it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

What? You are even less coherent tonight than usual. Reagan didnt ban anything.

Reagan banned the individual purchase, sale, and possession of all automatic weapons made after 1986.

No he didnt. I already explained what he did do. You're just too obtuse to understand it.

You cited the very limited exceptions. I already knew them.

So your position is that if handguns were banned for everyone except law enforcement, the military, and some dealers who could only use them for sales demonstrations...

...you don't believe that would be a handgun ban.

 

[The Rabbi]

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

What? You are even less coherent tonight than usual. Reagan didnt ban anything.

Reagan banned the individual purchase, sale, and possession of all automatic weapons made after 1986.

No he didnt. I already explained what he did do. You're just too obtuse to understand it.

You cited the very limited exceptions. I already knew them.

So your position is that if handguns were banned for everyone except law enforcement, the military, and some dealers who could only use them for sales demonstrations...

...you don't believe that would be a handgun ban.

When you start putting words in other people's mouths, which you invariably do when losing, you are a loser. Just saying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

Clearly this is rhetorical.

In the event it's not, it's consistent with the fact that most on the right are liars, and among the many ridiculous lies conservatives seek to propagate is the lie that 'liberals' want to 'ban' and 'confiscate' all guns.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

Clearly this is rhetorical.

In the event it's not, it's consistent with the fact that most on the right are liars, and among the many ridiculous lies conservatives seek to propagate is the lie that 'liberals' want to 'ban' and 'confiscate' all guns.

If your defintion of "rhetorical" is "bullshit" then I agree.
I've already posted examples of liberals wanting to ban and confiscate guns. The only lie is that they dont.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

Clearly this is rhetorical.

In the event it's not, it's consistent with the fact that most on the right are liars, and among the many ridiculous lies conservatives seek to propagate is the lie that 'liberals' want to 'ban' and 'confiscate' all guns.

Still ignoring the facts posted to you.

It is rich that you are calling anyone a liar while doing so though. The irony here is laughable.

 

[Politico]

"This backdoor gun control would be accomplished by forcing high volume gun dealers to obtain a license to sell guns from the ATF - one of the requirements being to perform background checks on purchasers."

AFAIK, this is already a requirement for all gun dealers across all states. Something is not adding up.

They plan to use an EO to redefine "dealer" as anyone who sells 50 guns or more per year.
Note that this runs contrary to the legislative definition found in federal law.

They only way they can know who does this is universal registration.

Everything leads back to universal registration.

No one wonders why.

I am against all the Libtard gun grabbers but seriously. Why would any typical person be selling more than 50 guns a year?

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Nope, that is wrong.

No it's not.

 

[The Rabbi]

They plan to use an EO to redefine "dealer" as anyone who sells 50 guns or more per year.
Note that this runs contrary to the legislative definition found in federal law.

They only way they can know who does this is universal registration.

Everything leads back to universal registration.

No one wonders why.

I am against all the Libtard gun grabbers but seriously. Why would any typical person be selling more than 50 guns a year?

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Nope, that is wrong.

No it's not.

You are simply factually wrong. Go check the definition of "dealer" and get back to me before wasting everyone else's time again.

 

[Rustic]

Well, how many of these shooting did the shooters get the firearms from gun shows??
How many of these shootings did they use an "real" assault weapons??

What laws can be passed to stop these mentally insane do what they do?

Just passing "feel good" laws to make it look like someone is doing something... Will make the problems worse.

Hashtag frivolous

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're comically trying to defend Reagan.

So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?

So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?

You're funny.

You're an idiot.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.

lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.

You said the opposite last year:

"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."

If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.

Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,

but the Ronald Reagan ban did.

So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?

Clearly this is rhetorical.

In the event it's not, it's consistent with the fact that most on the right are liars, and among the many ridiculous lies conservatives seek to propagate is the lie that 'liberals' want to 'ban' and 'confiscate' all guns.

The Obama, and several of His ilk, openly want to ban rifles, shotguns and handguns.

 

[Politico]

I am against all the Libtard gun grabbers but seriously. Why would any typical person be selling more than 50 guns a year?

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Nope, that is wrong.

No it's not.

You are simply factually wrong. Go check the definition of "dealer" and get back to me before wasting everyone else's time again.

LOL

 

[American_Jihad]

October 18, 2015
Hillary says Australian-style gun confiscation program 'worth considering' in America
By Rick Moran

Hillary Clinton told a town hall audience in New Hampshire that a gun confiscation program modelled after one passed in Australia in 1996, was "worth considering."

The draconian measure implemented by Australia siezed guns - including rifles - and gave token compensation to citizens in return.

...

Current Supreme Court decisions give Americans the constitutional right to individually bear arms. But if President Obama - or President Clinton - gets to name two liberal judges to replace conservatives, that will likely be reversed and a gun confiscation program could be ruled constitutional.

That's a true nightmare scenario. Many thousands of gun owners would almost certainly tell the government - "Come and take them." No doubt the resulting casualties would be explained away by liberals as the cost of "making us safe," a truly Orwellian construct.

That Clinton is even contemplating a gun confiscation program shows how far away we've gotten from simple, constitutional principles. Gun rights, which have been expanding over the last decade, could grind to a screeching halt if Hillary Clinton gets her way.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/hillary_says_australianstyle_gun_confiscation_program_worth_considering_in_america.html#ixzz3oyxSsyTH

 

[The Rabbi]

All kinds of reasons. I know plenty of people who do. One guy is a cancer survivor who likes guns and this is his hobby.

Yeah if they do every year they are a dealer.

Nope, that is wrong.

No it's not.

You are simply factually wrong. Go check the definition of "dealer" and get back to me before wasting everyone else's time again.

LOL

Translation: I looked it up and you were right.
As always.