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

Nobody is more qualified to speak about security and preventing incidents than Dan Bongino - a 14 year veteran of the Secret Service. He asked a profound question on the radio today:

"If banning guns works, why don't we just declare a 360 degree gun ban around the President and then simply disarm the Secret Service"?

The is not the first time he has posed this question:

Ex Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino @ Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD - 2nd Amendment - YouTube

Gun companies must love this one. So you need a gun to defend yourself because there are so many guns out there. That means guns are the solution and not the problem right? :cuckoo:
On the other hand... gun related violence is so bad that we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to bad that the law abiding have a legitmate need for a gun.
:cuckoo:
 
Obama31.jpg


Will Obama Try To Disarm Americans? — on The Glazov Gang

April 24, 2013
By Frontpagemag.com

...

The Gang members gathered to discuss Will Obama Try To Disarm Americans? The discussion occurred in Part II (beginning at the 11:00 mark) and focused on what will happen if the administration launches a full-out war on the Second Amendment. The segment began with a focus on Rachel Maddow’s Brain Numbing Attack on David Horowitz, which analyzed why MSNBC’s terminally sophomoric host scoffs at an author’s books without reading them. The dialogue shed light on how and why progressives oppress blacks and Hispanics while pretending to be their saviors. (See Frontpage’s article on it here). The segment also touched on: Will Americans Soon Live Like Israelis?

Part I focused on How the Left Yearned for a White American Bomber. The discussion centered on the Boston Massacre and David Sirota’s article in Salon which expressed his wish that the Boston Marathon bomber would be a white American terrorist. (See Daniel Greenfield’s analysis of it here.)

See both parts of the two-part series below:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2VkHcOZVaE&feature=player_embedded]The Glazov Gang - Part 1 of 2/Hoping for a White Boston Marathon Bomber - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5D4Vm8fdMQ&feature=player_embedded]The Glazov Gang - Part 2 of 2/Hoping for a White Boston Marathon Bomber - YouTube[/ame]

Will Obama Try To Disarm Americans? ? on The Glazov Gang | FrontPage Magazine
 
The sign this woman is holding

image_preview.jpg


is utterly ironic.

It is a picture of a baby. It should also say "don't abort me, I want to grow up too."

Her problem is within her own community; Young black males growing up without a father and within a gang.

I'm a racist for pointing out this fact but this is what needs to charge!
 
Last edited:
Note to Gun-Control Liberals: You Can’t Handle the Truth

1900 feet across the the river from Detroit which averages 1 murder a day is Windsor Ontario, which recently went 26 months without a homicide.

The truth is that Windsor isn't any more God fearing, or lacks its fair share of those mentally ill, as compared to its American counterpart - but it does have strict gun controls that make private handguns and automatic weapons virtually nonexistant.
What are the gun control laws in Detroit?
In Michigan?

When a area is controlled by people that don't care about the law. What can Washington dc do?:confused:
 
Nobody is more qualified to speak about security and preventing incidents than Dan Bongino - a 14 year veteran of the Secret Service. He asked a profound question on the radio today:

"If banning guns works, why don't we just declare a 360 degree gun ban around the President and then simply disarm the Secret Service"?

The is not the first time he has posed this question:

Ex Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino @ Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD - 2nd Amendment - YouTube

Gun companies must love this one. So you need a gun to defend yourself because there are so many guns out there. That means guns are the solution and not the problem right? :cuckoo:

You might be getting it.
 
Gun companies must love this one. So you need a gun to defend yourself because there are so many guns out there. That means guns are the solution and not the problem right? :cuckoo:

Man says to a woman: "Why do you have that gun? You do NOT need that gun"

Woman replies: "I need it to prevent you from raping me"

Man: "I have no intention of raping you"

Woman: "Then you should have no concerns about me owning a gun".

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it B357? The fact that you are so against them shows you have some dark, nefarious intent.
 
The sign this woman is holding

image_preview.jpg


is utterly ironic.

It is a picture of a baby. It should also say "don't abort me, I want to grow up too."

Her problem is within her own community; Young black males growing up without a father and within a gang.

I'm a racist for pointing out this fact but this is what needs to charge!

I agree that there is a societal problem in some black communities, and it could be a result of fatherless children who join gangs. Pointing that out isn't what makes you a racist POS, Matthew.
 
Gun companies must love this one. So you need a gun to defend yourself because there are so many guns out there. That means guns are the solution and not the problem right? :cuckoo:

Man says to a woman: "Why do you have that gun? You do NOT need that gun"

Woman replies: "I need it to prevent you from raping me"

Man: "I have no intention of raping you"

Woman: "Then you should have no concerns about me owning a gun".

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it B357? The fact that you are so against them shows you have some dark, nefarious intent.

I'm not against them, I own a few myself. I'm against the dishonest debate which has occurred. And I'm for stronger background checks and limits on magazine capacity. For example, I think that woman can defend herself quite well with say a .357 magnum revolver. And I think she should be checked out properly before being able to buy it. If she's a good law abiding person she will have no problem purchasing a gun.
 
And here we are with now the - what, 3,000 story since 2013 began? - of a person lawfully defending themselves with a firearm. But you won't here the left-wing media talk about that, will you? These people would have either been maimed or killed. Instead, they are alive and well and one more maniac is permanently off the streets.

Intruder With a Baseball Bat Vs. Texas Man With a Shotgun ? Here?s What Happened | TheBlaze.com

He defended himself without a high capacity semi-auto? Wow. Listening to pro gunners on here you'd think that couldn't happen. Thanks for the article supporting magazine capacity limits.
 
Note to Gun-Control Liberals: You Can’t Handle the Truth

December 25, 2012
by David L. Goetsch

---

Why are liberals so determined to avoid dealing with the hard truths about gun violence in America? It’s because they can’t handle the truth. The first and most important truth that must be faced about gun-violence in America is that liberals who are so vocal about passing gun-control laws are hypocrites—they are not interested in reducing gun violence in the first place. They are simply pandering to naïve Americans and those poor grieving families of shooting victims to make it appear that they care and are doing something.

Commenting on the gun-control debate, my business partner and friend, Sean Aland, likes to say: “In America, we have a heart problem, not a gun problem.” Another way to say the same thing is this: Push God aside and you will have Godlessness. Consequently, for liberal pundits and politicians to wring their hands and wonder aloud what is happening to America is nothing but theater. What is happening to America is that we are reaping the harvest of what liberals have been sowing for more than 40 years, a truth liberals can’t handle.

ahoy oh spirited American_Jihad!

matey, well met.

one quesiton; what was this conversation between Mr. Goetsch and Mr. Aland spurred on by?

i ask, because o'er the last five years, if ye look at legislation that has actually been passed, this POTUS has really been rather "pro-gun", in that gun laws hath been incrementally loosened whilst he has been our skipper. the Brady Campaign gave him an "F", i think, on gun control.

that bein' the case, imma unsure what is vexin' ye on this matter.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate
 
Last edited:
And here we are with now the - what, 3,000 story since 2013 began? - of a person lawfully defending themselves with a firearm. But you won't here the left-wing media talk about that, will you? These people would have either been maimed or killed. Instead, they are alive and well and one more maniac is permanently off the streets.

Intruder With a Baseball Bat Vs. Texas Man With a Shotgun ? Here?s What Happened | TheBlaze.com

He defended himself without a high capacity semi-auto? Wow. Listening to pro gunners on here you'd think that couldn't happen. Thanks for the article supporting magazine capacity limits.

And this is an example of backward thinking.

I do not have to prove that I need expanded magazines in order to keep my rights (or anyone else for that matter). YOU have to prove that such a law would, in fact, increase safety. It is you who are advocating for restriction of rights. I, as well as most here, do not argue that rights cannot be restricted. Rights are restricted all the time as required for all of us to enjoy them to their fullest. HOWEVER, when you want to restrict them, it is incumbent upon you to provide just cause and prove that the gains outweigh the loss. So far, that has not been shown ANYWHERE on this forum.

I have shown that evidence does supports the opposite position as a matter of fact.
 
And here we are with now the - what, 3,000 story since 2013 began? - of a person lawfully defending themselves with a firearm. But you won't here the left-wing media talk about that, will you? These people would have either been maimed or killed. Instead, they are alive and well and one more maniac is permanently off the streets.

Intruder With a Baseball Bat Vs. Texas Man With a Shotgun ? Here?s What Happened | TheBlaze.com

He defended himself without a high capacity semi-auto? Wow. Listening to pro gunners on here you'd think that couldn't happen. Thanks for the article supporting magazine capacity limits.

And this is an example of backward thinking.

I do not have to prove that I need expanded magazines in order to keep my rights (or anyone else for that matter). YOU have to prove that such a law would, in fact, increase safety. It is you who are advocating for restriction of rights. I, as well as most here, do not argue that rights cannot be restricted. Rights are restricted all the time as required for all of us to enjoy them to their fullest. HOWEVER, when you want to restrict them, it is incumbent upon you to provide just cause and prove that the gains outweigh the loss. So far, that has not been shown ANYWHERE on this forum.

I have shown that evidence does supports the opposite position as a matter of fact.

I think we all know there is a problem with mass shootings. I am suggesting a compromise that may help save some lives. If we could have an honest debate it would be up to the people to decide. Is having the right to high capacity magazines more important than trying to save lives? For me it is not, for you it is. I'm curious how most people would fall. Those people getting shot sure are losing a lot of rights.

Your argument is that lowering gun homicides does not lower the homicide rate. So my compromise is a limit on high capacity magazines. This should slow the mass shooter, but not someone defending their home. Nobody has given me any reason to believe that a home defender needs more than 10 rounds. This is just a common sense compromise. I think most people would agree to it.
 
Have I not had this debate with you before where I brought you the facts? Maybe that was another poster, I have done this many times here and not a single poster has been able to bring a fact so far, perhaps you will give me a real challenge here…
I think we all know there is a problem with mass shootings. I am suggesting a compromise that may help save some lives.
But you are not presenting any facts that show your suggestion has any merit. Since such limitations actually exist why have you not presented them here in support of such a ban? Further, have you even researched how effective those bans were?

If the last statement is a no then how can you support such a position? Knowledge is power.
If we could have an honest debate it would be up to the people to decide. Is having the right to high capacity magazines more important than trying to save lives? For me it is not, for you it is. I'm curious how most people would fall. Those people getting shot sure are losing a lot of rights.
No, it certainly would NOT be up to the people to decide. That is not how constitutional law works. It is not up to the people to decide slavery. It is not going to be up to the people to decide gay marriage. It is not up to the people to decide abortion. The people decide common law that does not affect your constitutional rights. They do not get to decide your rights.

Also, you are false in the assertion that:
Is having the right to high capacity magazines more important than trying to save lives? For me it is not, for you it is.
This statement is outright false. For me, restricting magazine size DOES NOT save lives. Evidence backs this assertion up. For you, you believe that it might save lives. I await for you to prove that.
Your argument is that lowering gun homicides does not lower the homicide rate.
Close but not quite right. My position is that removing gun rights does not lower homicide rates. I make no connection with ‘gun homicides’ at all as that is a useless statement. There is no gun dead, knife dead or dead. It is all just dead. By adding qualifiers to raw data you allow the presenter of said data to manipulate it. The whole picture needs to be presented so I speak in simple homicide rates rather than removing those homicides that do or do not agree with my position.
So my compromise is a limit on high capacity magazines. This should slow the mass shooter, but not someone defending their home. Nobody has given me any reason to believe that a home defender needs more than 10 rounds. This is just a common sense compromise. I think most people would agree to it.
What the defender ‘needs’ is, as had been stated before, irrelevant. Common sense is insufficient for you to limit rights and make demands about what I can and cannot own. You need actual numbers, proof or at least a lack of any information in general (aka. Does not exist). Claiming that it is ‘common sense’ does not allow you to ignore the mountains of facts that are out there.
 
Have I not had this debate with you before where I brought you the facts? Maybe that was another poster, I have done this many times here and not a single poster has been able to bring a fact so far, perhaps you will give me a real challenge here…
I think we all know there is a problem with mass shootings. I am suggesting a compromise that may help save some lives.
But you are not presenting any facts that show your suggestion has any merit. Since such limitations actually exist why have you not presented them here in support of such a ban? Further, have you even researched how effective those bans were?

If the last statement is a no then how can you support such a position? Knowledge is power.
If we could have an honest debate it would be up to the people to decide. Is having the right to high capacity magazines more important than trying to save lives? For me it is not, for you it is. I'm curious how most people would fall. Those people getting shot sure are losing a lot of rights.
No, it certainly would NOT be up to the people to decide. That is not how constitutional law works. It is not up to the people to decide slavery. It is not going to be up to the people to decide gay marriage. It is not up to the people to decide abortion. The people decide common law that does not affect your constitutional rights. They do not get to decide your rights.

Also, you are false in the assertion that:
Is having the right to high capacity magazines more important than trying to save lives? For me it is not, for you it is.
This statement is outright false. For me, restricting magazine size DOES NOT save lives. Evidence backs this assertion up. For you, you believe that it might save lives. I await for you to prove that.
Your argument is that lowering gun homicides does not lower the homicide rate.
Close but not quite right. My position is that removing gun rights does not lower homicide rates. I make no connection with ‘gun homicides’ at all as that is a useless statement. There is no gun dead, knife dead or dead. It is all just dead. By adding qualifiers to raw data you allow the presenter of said data to manipulate it. The whole picture needs to be presented so I speak in simple homicide rates rather than removing those homicides that do or do not agree with my position.
So my compromise is a limit on high capacity magazines. This should slow the mass shooter, but not someone defending their home. Nobody has given me any reason to believe that a home defender needs more than 10 rounds. This is just a common sense compromise. I think most people would agree to it.
What the defender ‘needs’ is, as had been stated before, irrelevant. Common sense is insufficient for you to limit rights and make demands about what I can and cannot own. You need actual numbers, proof or at least a lack of any information in general (aka. Does not exist). Claiming that it is ‘common sense’ does not allow you to ignore the mountains of facts that are out there.

I've heard your facts regarding taking guns away completely. What do you have for limiting the capacity of magazines? Do you have a good example of a country doing it for an extended period of time? Clearly we did it here, but we didn't take them away from anyone and it didn't last long enough for it to work. We do it in cities but it is easy to go to the next city to buy. So I would like to hear what you have. I think they would mostly effect the number of casualties in a mass shooting. What do you have for that?
 
Have I not had this debate with you before where I brought you the facts? Maybe that was another poster, I have done this many times here and not a single poster has been able to bring a fact so far, perhaps you will give me a real challenge here…
I think we all know there is a problem with mass shootings. I am suggesting a compromise that may help save some lives.
But you are not presenting any facts that show your suggestion has any merit. Since such limitations actually exist why have you not presented them here in support of such a ban? Further, have you even researched how effective those bans were?

If the last statement is a no then how can you support such a position? Knowledge is power.
If we could have an honest debate it would be up to the people to decide. Is having the right to high capacity magazines more important than trying to save lives? For me it is not, for you it is. I'm curious how most people would fall. Those people getting shot sure are losing a lot of rights.
No, it certainly would NOT be up to the people to decide. That is not how constitutional law works. It is not up to the people to decide slavery. It is not going to be up to the people to decide gay marriage. It is not up to the people to decide abortion. The people decide common law that does not affect your constitutional rights. They do not get to decide your rights.

Also, you are false in the assertion that:
Is having the right to high capacity magazines more important than trying to save lives? For me it is not, for you it is.
This statement is outright false. For me, restricting magazine size DOES NOT save lives. Evidence backs this assertion up. For you, you believe that it might save lives. I await for you to prove that.
Your argument is that lowering gun homicides does not lower the homicide rate.
Close but not quite right. My position is that removing gun rights does not lower homicide rates. I make no connection with ‘gun homicides’ at all as that is a useless statement. There is no gun dead, knife dead or dead. It is all just dead. By adding qualifiers to raw data you allow the presenter of said data to manipulate it. The whole picture needs to be presented so I speak in simple homicide rates rather than removing those homicides that do or do not agree with my position.
So my compromise is a limit on high capacity magazines. This should slow the mass shooter, but not someone defending their home. Nobody has given me any reason to believe that a home defender needs more than 10 rounds. This is just a common sense compromise. I think most people would agree to it.
What the defender ‘needs’ is, as had been stated before, irrelevant. Common sense is insufficient for you to limit rights and make demands about what I can and cannot own. You need actual numbers, proof or at least a lack of any information in general (aka. Does not exist). Claiming that it is ‘common sense’ does not allow you to ignore the mountains of facts that are out there.

Here is a fact for you. Mass shootings have gone down dramatically in Australia since the new gun control laws in 1996. So is there a direct relation between mass shootings and gun control? I think the answer is yes, but maybe you have other facts. Now did they maybe go too far and limit mass shootings while increasing other homicides? Could be, hence the magazine capacity limit compromise.
 
I've heard your facts regarding taking guns away completely. What do you have for limiting the capacity of magazines? Do you have a good example of a country doing it for an extended period of time? Clearly we did it here, but we didn't take them away from anyone and it didn't last long enough for it to work. We do it in cities but it is easy to go to the next city to buy. So I would like to hear what you have. I think they would mostly effect the number of casualties in a mass shooting. What do you have for that?

So you are going to narrow what you will accept until there is nothing left then? Not only are you telling me that you reject local laws but that you are going to ignore anything that ‘is not long enough.’ How long is that? Why do you even put that qualifier in there?

First, since I have given you my data on Canada here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...n-sense-and-don-t-comprehend-security-12.html
Part of the laws thy passed included controls on magazine size. You are talking about honest debate here and yet you are asking that I support all my points without recompense. Your post on that page was using an unreferenced image that was outright false and I don’t think that you ever responded when I gave you the numbers directly from their government and called you out on your source (page 12 of that thread)

That is not honest debate.

Also, nothing I have ever debated was directly related to taking guns away completely. That is just one faucet of gun control. It covered an array of options from removing guns to licensing them to ‘assault’ weapon restrictions. NONE of it works.

FBI ? Table 1
1992 9.3
1993 9.5
1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3
1999 5.7
2000 5.5
2001 5.6
2002 5.6
2003 5.7
2004 5.5
2005 5.6
2006 5.7
2007 5.6
2008 5.4
2009 5.0
2010 4.8
2011 4.7

We passed a restriction on magazine size here in Sep ’94.

Here, the data almost (that is almost) supports your position. Homicide (including negligent manslaughter) rates peaked at 9.8 in ’91 and were on a down trend when congress passed the last law controlling magazine size. There was a rather steep downtrend from ’95 (first year that law was in effect) to ’00 from 8.2 to 5.5 and remained flat after that. The law was rescinded in ’04. The problem here is that after the law went away, homicide rates continued to decrease to 4.7 today. This leads me to conclude that the downtrend had nothing to do with the law in the first place as it is still down trending. The trend started before the law was passed, continued through the law for a while before leveling off and then continued still even after the law went away. If the law were the cause of the initial drop (and not, perhaps, the fact that the early 90’s seen a drastic increase in crime for unrelated other issues) then we would have seen an increase after the law was rescinded. It looks as though the gun law actually had no impact on homicide rates at all. It agrees with almost all the data out there.

Lastly, you also need to remember that columbine occurred right in the middle of that ban so its impact on mass shootings is also questionable. If you remember that time frame, columbine was just the first in a whole rash of such incidents as well.

Now, I continually prove my point here but, as I have pointed out before, the onus in NOT on me. It is on YOU. You want to restrict rights, not the gun rights advocates so you need to prove that such is in the interest of everyone and that interest is strong enough to justify restricting constitutional rights. As I stated before, if you do not already have all of this information, how can you advocate restricting rights? Are rights so meaningless that it does not warrant deep investigation on your part before advocating that they be restricted? I hold all rights as integral, even ones that I don’t agree with, and would not advocate restriction unless I had done due diligence in the effects.
 
First, since I have given you my data on Canada here:
Tragedies continue because liberals lack common sense & don't comprehend security
Part of the laws thy passed included controls on magazine size. You are talking about honest debate here and yet you are asking that I support all my points without recompense. Your post on that page was using an unreferenced image that was outright false and I don’t think that you ever responded when I gave you the numbers directly from their government and called you out on your source (page 12 of that thread)

That is not honest debate.

After you provided better stats I didn't disagree with them. That is honest debate. Now if I was a pro gun guy I might have just swore at you.

I'll provide some facts for you in the future so we can debate them.
 
Gun companies must love this one. So you need a gun to defend yourself because there are so many guns out there. That means guns are the solution and not the problem right? :cuckoo:

Man says to a woman: "Why do you have that gun? You do NOT need that gun"

Woman replies: "I need it to prevent you from raping me"

Man: "I have no intention of raping you"

Woman: "Then you should have no concerns about me owning a gun".

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it B357? The fact that you are so against them shows you have some dark, nefarious intent.

I'm not against them, I own a few myself. I'm against the dishonest debate which has occurred. And I'm for stronger background checks and limits on magazine capacity. For example, I think that woman can defend herself quite well with say a .357 magnum revolver. And I think she should be checked out properly before being able to buy it. If she's a good law abiding person she will have no problem purchasing a gun.

And I think a woman can defend herself exponentially better with a fully automatic Uzi - it's got much less kick than a .357 magnum so it's easier to control (much easier - especially for a lady) and it has more rounds and is easier to reload in the case of multiple attackers.

As far as background checks, that already is the case. I've purchased quite a few firearms in my day and every single one included a background check with the F.B.I. at the time of the sale.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not stipulate anything about background checks. If the left would learn to take personal responsibility for their security (hell, if the left would learn to take personal responsibility for anything) - none of this would be an issue.
 

Forum List

Back
Top