NRA rolls out new ads

[CrimsonWhite]

oh, ok this statement "It's because the actual point of gun control laws is not to disarm violent felons--the point of gun control is to disarm regular folks." is RELATIVELY proven, so it shouldnt be questioned.

It may not be the direct goal to disarm what Loki calls "regular folks" but it is the direct result, yet criminals still have guns.

 

[busara]

It may not be the direct goal to disarm what Loki calls "regular folks" but it is the direct result, yet criminals still have guns.

it is the direct result because you say it is relatively true? all im asking for is some numbers, not your conjecture

 

[elvis]

It may not be the direct goal to disarm what Loki calls "regular folks" but it is the direct result, yet criminals still have guns.

You're just clinging to guns because you are bitter.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

it is the direct result because you say it is relatively true? all im asking for is some numbers, not your conjecture

There are no numbers. It is simply accepted. Like the sky is blue, fire is hot, and water is wet. You don't need numbers to realize that gun laws restrict law abiding citizens from buying guns, while criminals will continue to acquire guns in a not so legal manner.

Are you really this dumb? Is this really that difficult to grasp?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You're just clinging to guns because you are bitter.

Yep, thats me. I'm bitter. Guess I better cling to my religion to.

 

[elvis]

Yep, thats me. I'm bitter. Guess I better cling to my religion to.

And don't forget the anti-trade.

 

[busara]

There are no numbers. It is simply accepted. Like the sky is blue, fire is hot, and water is wet. You don't need numbers to realize that gun laws restrict law abiding citizens from buying guns, while criminals will continue to acquire guns in a not so legal manner.

Are you really this dumb? Is this really that difficult to grasp?

so you stoop to insults. way to be mature.

it ISNT commonly accepted. where are your numbers that gun control laws have had no effect on the number of criminals getting weapons while it is keeping future victims of crimes from getting them when desired? you cant claim something to be fact without any evidence to support it!! is that hard for YOU to understand?

 

[Mauser]

so not wanting people to carry around AK47's and not wanting people to secretely carry a handgun is the same as not supporting any form of gun ownership? your logic is flawed

First....an AK47 is an automatic rifle, not a semi-automatic rifle.

Secondly.....if a person is licensed by their state to carry a concealed weapon, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

I should also mention that Obama has, in the past, supported a total ban on all forms of semi-automatic weapons.....both rifles and pistols.

When Barack Obama talks about the 2nd Amendment, he immediately begins talking about hunting and sport shooting. Apparently, he believes it merely protects our right to keep and bear sporting goods. He also says that we should be able to own firearms to defend ourselves.....but apparently this right to self defense ends when we leave our home.

I seriously wonder if he has any clue at all as to the purpose of the Amendment.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

so you stoop to insults. way to be mature.

it ISNT commonly accepted. where are your numbers that gun control laws have had no effect on the number of criminals getting weapons while it is keeping future victims of crimes from getting them when desired? you cant claim something to be fact without any evidence to support it!! is that hard for YOU to understand?

My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first.

Not everything can be supported by numbers. Not everything is studied and just because you don't accept it, does not mean that it isn't true. I could take the explanation that I just gave you into a court room and it would stand as fact.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

so not wanting people to carry around AK47's and not wanting people to secretely carry a handgun is the same as not supporting any form of gun ownership? your logic is flawed

My right to carry a gun is protected by the constitution. Hence the term "bear arms."

 

[LOki]

oh, ok this statement "It's because the actual point of gun control laws is not to disarm violent felons--the point of gun control is to disarm regular folks." is RELATIVELY proven, so it shouldnt be questioned.

Strawman.

Question away.

It is patently obvious that requiring background checks is in no way meant to prevent folks who do do not submit themeslves to background checks (violent felons, for instance) from getting guns.

It is also patently obvious that requiring gun registration is in no way meant to prevent folks who do not register their guns (violent felons, for instance) from getting guns.

It is also patently obvious that requiring waiting periods is in no way meant to prevent folks who do not observe waiting periods (violent felons, for instance) from getting their guns right now.

It is also patently obvious that criminalizing ownership of guns is in any way meant to prevent criminals (violent felons, for instance) from getting guns.

The patently obvious truth is that background checks, waiting periods, and gun registration are the baby steps toward criminalizing gun ownership for decent, law-abiding folks--the victims of violent felons--rather than the criminals themselves. This is the patently clear intent of such legislation, otherwise these laws would not infringe upon the rights of decent, law-abiding folks to legally obtain guns--they'd be able to walk right into any Wal-Mart, bait shop, hardware store, or sporting goods store and buy any gun they desired without having to produce anything but legal tender.

The obvious point of gun control legislation is to prevent just that--the ability of decent, law abiding folks to legally obtain any gun they choose without the permission, interference, or any other infringment upon their right, by the government.

 

[busara]

My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first.

Not everything can be supported by numbers. Not everything is studied and just because you don't accept it, does not mean that it isn't true. I could take the explanation that I just gave you into a court room and it would stand as fact.

you could easily have said that there is no evidence to support the claim. if you cant back up a claim, it WONT hold up in court. all i wanted was evidence that gun control laws have no effect on criminals getting guns. simply saying 'its obvious' isnt enough. and im not trying to debate, i am asking for the facts. guess the fact is that there is no concrete evidence to support the claim.

 

[Ninja]

My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first.

Yep. Busara's one of the "we need to ban assault weapons" types. The problem is, he thinks that when his favorite anti-gun politicians talk about assault weapons, they're talking about machine guns.

Probably thought Obama was talking about machine guns when he reference AK-47s during his speech.

Busara has a weak, malleable mind and enjoys being lied to. I'd say debate is a waste of time.

I still note that no one has refuted the NRA ads. Suck it, bitchs.

 

[busara]

Yep. Busara's one of the "we need to ban assault weapons" types. The problem is, he thinks that when his favorite anti-gun politicians talk about assault weapons, they're talking about machine guns.

Probably thought Obama was talking about machine guns when he reference AK-47s during his speech.

Busara has a weak, malleable mind and enjoys being lied to. I'd say debate is a waste of time.

I still note that no one has refuted the NRA ads. Suck it, bitchs.

ninja, you havent had a viable debate on this board either. you just say shit and then leave without any evidence. as i said, im not looking to debate. i just wanted to see some evidence to back up the claims, and i have yet to see any. but yeah, that makes me unreasonable. i support the 2nd, i just dont see the need to own huge ass guns. but that isnt the issue here. the issue is claims without factual support

 

[Ninja]

you just say shit and then leave without any evidence.

A brass-faced lie. This thread proves you wrong.

Next.

 

[busara]

A brass-faced lie. This thread proves you wrong.

Next.

sure ninja. sure.

oh yeah, and just ignore the fact that im just looking for some facts for the question i asked. no one else is providing them. can you?

 

[Ninja]

"My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first."

Agreed. Busara's living proof of this. Maybe when he goes and learns what an "assault weapon" is so he doesn't come off as a gun-ignorant twerp, we can have a nice debate.

I personally don't care about felons having firearms. I care about them using firearms to commit crimes. So rather than look at the relationship between gun control laws and the number of criminals getting weapons (which seems impossible to accurately measure), I look at the relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate. There's a treasure trove of info on this. Do some research on this after learning what an "assault weapon" is, busara.

 

[busara]

"My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first."

Agreed. Busara's living proof of this. Maybe when he goes and learns what an "assault weapon" is so he doesn't come off as a gun-ignorant twerp, we can have a nice debate.

I personally don't care about felons having firearms. I care about them using firearms to commit crimes. So rather than look at the relationship between gun control laws and the number of criminals getting weapons (which seems impossible to accurately measure), I look at the relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate. There's a treasure trove of info on this. Do some research on this after learning what an "assault weapon" is, busara.

i know what an assualt rifle is. and i know about the relationship between gun control and crime rates. all i did was ask if the claim about gun control having no effect on criminals getting guns while making future victims have less could be factually substantiated. why? because i like having information, but so far it hasnt been backed up.

you all are so in love with your guns you took my question as being an attack on guns in general.

 

[Ravi]

Hey, Ninja, you whiney ass little neg repper. Quit lying that McCain can't use a keyboard, it makes him look stoopid.

 

[Ninja]

Hey, Ninja, you whiney ass little neg repper. Quit lying that McCain can't use a keyboard, it makes him look stoopid.

Man is it funny watching a grown woman whine about something as inconsequential and meaningless as a neg rep