Pew Discredits Gun-Grabbers

[Marion Morrison]

Know why the US has never been invaded?
(At least since 1812)

E'erbody got guns and knows how to shoot.

When I was a kid, the Boy's Club had a .22 rifle range.

I don't think that's the case anymore, they done been PC-ified. Thanks, Obama!


PS: That needs reversed. Kids need to know how to shoot guns and arrows.

 

[Mudda]

Know why the US has never been invaded?
(At least since 1812)

E'erbody got guns and knows how to shoot.

When I was a kid, the Boy's Club had a .22 rifle range.

I don't think that's the case anymore, they done been PC-ified. Thanks, Obama!


PS: That needs reversed. Kids need to know how to shoot guns and arrows.

The US hasn't won a war since WWII, and we needed help in that one.

 

[Auld Phart]

More interested in defending myself and my property from attacks by miscreants than attacks by the government

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

Such as?

infringing on MY rights?

No, just having more control over the guns and bullets, like, no lending your gun, serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner... Closing all the gun show loopholes... There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun... I have no problem with legal gun owners, but we need to break the link between gun manufacturers and evildoers, because the evildoers always seem to have guns from legal manufacturers. Is there something we can do to break that link?

You're hero is a thug, Al Capone, so you laugh at any attempt to talk about making guns safer. The only thing you want to know is safe are your gun stocks. You don't care about people, especially children. I get it.

There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun

Great idea!

Then the wife, and others living in my house will all need their OWN firearms, because the fingerprint 'safety' will prevent them from using mine.

serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner...

another great idea!

Drive the cost of bullets up from $25 a box to $500 a box.
(What do you do about people that reload their own?)

, no lending your gun

at all?

Not to my brother, my son in law, the guy standing next to me at the range to see how it shoots?

Capone is not my 'hero', I just liked the saying.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's not clear to me what "gun-grabber" means:

1. Does it mean people who "grab" a gun to shoot another individual in response to that individual's having, in the "grabber's" mind, committed against them great or small wrongs, real and/or imagined?
2. Does it mean people who want to "grab" the guns that are held in the public sphere?

At some points in your OP, it seems you mean the former, at others, the latter.

Pew Discredits Gun-Grabbers

How the hell is it that you explicitly mention a Pew remark yet not one of your links in the OP takes one directly to original documentation of the alleged discrediting by Pew?

the impossible task of disarming criminals

The task of disarming (with regard to guns) criminals is impossible to achieve only if one defines the goal of doing so as disarming 100% of criminals of 100% of the access they might have to guns. It does not take 100% disarmament to effect a reduction in gun-related crime, deaths and injuries.

Democrat gun-grabbers spent decades trying to sell the lie that the Founders had criminals in mind when they included the Second Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.

I haven't seen credible and sound arguments from Democrats that asserts crime prevention is what the Founders had in mind by including among the BoR the 2nd Amendment. On the contrary, it's gun ownership advocates, typically conservatives, who proffer the crime and self-defense against it line of argumentation, most often of late citing Heller as they do so.

The gun-grabbers are united behind one political strategy. Criminals are the problem.

I'm not sure how to respond to this because of the risibly ambiguous term "gun-grabber."

• If "gun-grabber" means gun rights advocates, you are correct in that they near universally argue that crime prevention and self-defense is a key reason the general public and they in particular need to have guns.
• If "gun-grabber" means gun control advocates, they are right in that criminal use of guns is the gun problem that needs to be attenuated.

In light of the above, there is no question that criminals are a problem cited by individuals and groups on both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate.

Hollywood created the false premise way back in the black & white movie era:

There is not one Hollywood movie that I know of where the plot dealt with the reason for the Second Amendment; a screenplay where guns defended against the federal government. Turning the constitutional reason for guns into a defense against criminals was the message Hollywood Communists put out —— with great success I might add.​

​

The emboldened clause is among the most balmy things I've seen written on USMB. As a movie that directly, expressly and from a legal theory standpoint took on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the notion of "original intent," there probably aren't any widely viewed Hollywood movies of that nature. There are quite a few Hollywood movies that tacitly extol the virtues of gun ownership and their responsible/just use:

• Red Dawn -- High school kids in Michigan fight off communist invaders from Cuba.
• Gran Torino -- An aging Clint Eastwood saves his neighbors from gangbangers.
• The Hateful Eight -- Tarantino’s newest. EVERYBODY will be armed to the teeth!
• The Alamo -- No gun control in the 1830s, especially for the Mexicans.
• Shooter -- Arguably the best conspiracy theory movie since Parallax View.
• Lawless -- Essentially Bonnie and Clyde with even more guns.
• Justified -- A TV show.
• Dirty Harry
• Zombieland
• Big Jake -- Yes, even John Wayne gets in on the game.
• Fallout -- Another TV series, but it's clearly one that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.
• The Last Ship -- A TV series that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.

There is also no shortage of movies, including from the "black and white" era of film that portray the use of guns in the United States' seminal struggle against governmental tyranny. Then there are the movies -- all of them from the "black and white" era -- that while fewer in number nonetheless positively portray gun use in various fights against governmental tyranny and excess in various contexts associated with the battles that solidified the Revolutionary War win.

• The Buccaneer (1938)
  
• Captain Caution (1940) -- In the midst of the war of 1812, a British frigate fires upon a peaceful, unwitting mercantile ship. In the attack, the trader's captain is killed and the British take the surviving crew prisoner, including sailor Dan Marvin (Victor Mature) and the late captain's willful daughter Corunna Dorman (Louise Platt). In captivity, Marvin and Corunna form an uneasy alliance and, along with the other prisoners, plot an escape. Their goal: Reclaim their ship and avenge the murder of their captain.
  
• Mutiny (1952)
  
• Brave Warrior (1952)
  
• The Buccaneer (1958)

The scope of what you know of or don't know of is of no value to you or anyone one else. You really need to do more of something -- read more, get out more, etc. -- something whereby you make an effort to find out whether what you know of or don't know of is in fact the limit of what exists or has ever existed.

The lie did not escape the man who lies about everything:

Taqiyya the Liar ——making a lot of noise for the press —— will be satisfied if he reinforces the lie that the Second Amendment is about criminals​

Who is Taqiyya the Liar? I'm aware of the Islamic concepts of taqiyya -- a notion that allows for, in certain circumstances, lying to non-believers in God and Islam -- but I have no idea of what person you have in mind when you write "Taqiyya the Liar." Whoever it is, they at least need to be Muslim for the "pseudonym" you've assigned to be fitting.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It's not clear to me what "gun-grabber" means:

1. Does it mean people who "grab" a gun to shoot another individual in response to that individual's having, in the "grabber's" mind, committed against them great or small wrongs, real and/or imagined?
2. Does it mean people who want to "grab" the guns that are held in the public sphere?

At some points in your OP, it seems you mean the former, at others, the latter.

Pew Discredits Gun-Grabbers

How the hell is it that you explicitly mention a Pew remark yet not one of your links in the OP takes one directly to original documentation of the alleged discrediting by Pew?

the impossible task of disarming criminals

The task of disarming (with regard to guns) criminals is impossible to achieve only if one defines the goal of doing so as disarming 100% of criminals of 100% of the access they might have to guns. It does not take 100% disarmament to effect a reduction in gun-related crime, deaths and injuries.

Democrat gun-grabbers spent decades trying to sell the lie that the Founders had criminals in mind when they included the Second Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.

I haven't seen credible and sound arguments from Democrats that asserts crime prevention is what the Founders had in mind by including among the BoR the 2nd Amendment. On the contrary, it's gun ownership advocates, typically conservatives, who proffer the crime and self-defense against it line of argumentation, most often of late citing Heller as they do so.

The gun-grabbers are united behind one political strategy. Criminals are the problem.

I'm not sure how to respond to this because of the risibly ambiguous term "gun-grabber."

• If "gun-grabber" means gun rights advocates, you are correct in that they near universally argue that crime prevention and self-defense is a key reason the general public and they in particular need to have guns.
• If "gun-grabber" means gun control advocates, they are right in that criminal use of guns is the gun problem that needs to be attenuated.

In light of the above, there is no question that criminals are a problem cited by individuals and groups on both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate.

Hollywood created the false premise way back in the black & white movie era:

There is not one Hollywood movie that I know of where the plot dealt with the reason for the Second Amendment; a screenplay where guns defended against the federal government. Turning the constitutional reason for guns into a defense against criminals was the message Hollywood Communists put out —— with great success I might add.​

​

The emboldened clause is among the most balmy things I've seen written on USMB. As a movie that directly, expressly and from a legal theory standpoint took on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the notion of "original intent," there probably aren't any widely viewed Hollywood movies of that nature. There are quite a few Hollywood movies that tacitly extol the virtues of gun ownership and their responsible/just use:

• Red Dawn -- High school kids in Michigan fight off communist invaders from Cuba.
• Gran Torino -- An aging Clint Eastwood saves his neighbors from gangbangers.
• The Hateful Eight -- Tarantino’s newest. EVERYBODY will be armed to the teeth!
• The Alamo -- No gun control in the 1830s, especially for the Mexicans.
• Shooter -- Arguably the best conspiracy theory movie since Parallax View.
• Lawless -- Essentially Bonnie and Clyde with even more guns.
• Justified -- A TV show.
• Dirty Harry
• Zombieland
• Big Jake -- Yes, even John Wayne gets in on the game.
• Fallout -- Another TV series, but it's clearly one that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.
• The Last Ship -- A TV series that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.

There is also no shortage of movies, including from the "black and white" era of film that portray the use of guns in the United States' seminal struggle against governmental tyranny. Then there are the movies -- all of them from the "black and white" era -- that while fewer in number nonetheless positively portray gun use in various fights against governmental tyranny and excess in various contexts associated with the battles that solidified the Revolutionary War win.

• The Buccaneer (1938)
  
• Captain Caution (1940) -- In the midst of the war of 1812, a British frigate fires upon a peaceful, unwitting mercantile ship. In the attack, the trader's captain is killed and the British take the surviving crew prisoner, including sailor Dan Marvin (Victor Mature) and the late captain's willful daughter Corunna Dorman (Louise Platt). In captivity, Marvin and Corunna form an uneasy alliance and, along with the other prisoners, plot an escape. Their goal: Reclaim their ship and avenge the murder of their captain.
  
• Mutiny (1952)
  
• Brave Warrior (1952)
  
• The Buccaneer (1958)

The scope of what you know of or don't know of is of no value to you or anyone one else. You really need to do more of something -- read more, get out more, etc. -- something whereby you make an effort to find out whether what you know of or don't know of is in fact the limit of what exists or has ever existed.

The lie did not escape the man who lies about everything:

Taqiyya the Liar ——making a lot of noise for the press —— will be satisfied if he reinforces the lie that the Second Amendment is about criminals​

Who is Taqiyya the Liar? I'm aware of the Islamic concepts of taqiyya -- a notion that allows for, in certain circumstances, lying to non-believers in God and Islam -- but I have no idea of what person you have in mind when you write "Taqiyya the Liar." Whoever it is, they at least need to be Muslim for the "pseudonym" you've assigned to be fitting.

It means subversive assholes trying to curtail American's gun rights. Clear enough? I hope so.

I should be coming through loud and crystal.

PS: Where did you get that shit in your post?
"Red Dawn -- High school kids in Michigan fight off communist invaders from Cuba."




No, it's not about Cubans invading. They already had in 1981, for real.

The movie for that would be "Scarface" k?

The invaders are not from Cuba, and the defenders are not in Michigan.

 

[usmbguest5318]

From the the Pew study:

• "44% of U.S. adults say they personally know someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally, and about a quarter (23%) say they or someone in their family have been threatened or intimidated by someone using a gun. Half see gun violence as a very big problem in the U.S. today, although gun owners and non-owners offer divergent views on this.

• "Gun owners and non-owners are also deeply divided on several gun policy proposals, but there is agreement on some restrictions, such as preventing those with mental illnesses and those on federal watch lists from buying guns. Among gun owners, there is a diversity of views on gun policy, driven in large part by party affiliation."

• "Two-thirds of gun owners say protection is a major reason they own a gun. By comparison, about four-in-ten (38%) cite hunting as a major reason and three-in-ten cite sport shooting, including target shooting, trap and skeet. Fewer point to a gun collection (13%) or to their job (8%) as being central to why they own a gun. To be sure, for many gun owners, these reasons overlap: 44% offer more than one major reason for owning a gun."

​

• "Of the many possible safety precautions gun owners could take when they live with children in the home, three receive majority support from both non-owners and those who currently own a firearm. Nearly all gun owners (95%) believe that talking to children about gun safety is essential, followed by 66% who say all guns should be kept in a locked place when there are children living in the home, and 59% who say gun owners who are parents should take a gun safety course...When asked about their own habits, roughly half of gun owners with children under 18 living at home say all of the guns in their home are kept in a locked place (54%) and all are unloaded (53%). Many gun owners with children say at least some of their guns are kept unlocked and loaded. In fact, 30% of these gun owners say there is a gun that is both loaded and easily accessible to them all of the time when they’re at home."

​

• "Solid majorities of both gun owners and non-owners favor limiting access to guns for people with mental illnesses and individuals who are on the federal no-fly or watch lists (82% or higher favor among each group). In addition, strong majorities favor background checks for private sales and at gun shows (77% among gun owners and 87% among non-owners)."

• Other charts from the study.

​

Now out of all of that, particularly the red text, how do you arrive at the conclusion that criminals and protection from them and their deeds is an argument advanced by "gun-grabbers?" You wrote, "The gun-grabbers are united behind one political strategy. Criminals are the problem."​

 

[Flanders]

No, just having more control over the guns and bullets, like, no lending your gun, serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner... Closing all the gun show loopholes... There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun... I have no problem with legal gun owners, but we need to break the link between gun manufacturers and evildoers, because the evildoers always seem to have guns from legal manufacturers. Is there so

To Mudda: The individual gun owner can make the choice. In short: You would give the choice to the government. That must end in MORE GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL.

Incidentally, will Obama’s Ready Reserve Corps require fingerprints so no one can pick up the gun and use it should one his people be killed or wounded in a revolution?

​

Obama is out of office, but his personal goon remains loyal to him. No other president in history controlled anything like that on tax dollars after they left office.

NOTE: Obama’s goon squad was funded in the ACA. Does anyone know if Obama’s Ready Reserve Corps was removed from Paul Ryan’s Obamacare-lite?

It's paranoid to think that they're coming after YOU.

To Mudda: It is a death wish to believe otherwise.

You don't care about people, especially children. I get it.

To Mudda: Your kind cares so much about children they butchered close to 60 million since 1973 and still counting.

The US hasn't won a war since WWII, and we needed help in that one.

To Mudda: The US has not declared war after WWII, but lost one thanks to Democrats and Woodrow Wilson:

Had America defeated the Communists in Vietnam, and in Korea, instead of fighting Peace Without Victory wars China would not be building islands with two American allies on its borders.​

Abolishing The Presidential Oath Of Office

It's not clear to me what "gun-grabber" means:

To Xelor: Keep reading the OP until you get it!

How the hell is it that you explicitly mention a Pew remark yet not one of your links in the OP takes one directly to original documentation of the alleged discrediting by Pew?

To Xelor: That is easy. I selected what I wanted to talk about.

The task of disarming (with regard to guns) criminals is impossible to achieve only if one defines the goal of doing so as disarming 100% of criminals of 100% of the access they might have to guns. It does not take 100% disarmament to effect a reduction in gun-related crime, deaths and injuries.

To Xelor: Local and state police forces are supposed to deal with criminals —— not the federal government.

I haven't seen credible and sound arguments from Democrats that asserts crime prevention is what the Founders had in mind by including among the BoR the 2nd Amendment.

To Xelor: Every talking point implies just that.

On the contrary, it's gun ownership advocates, typically conservatives, who proffer the crime and self-defense against it line of argumentation, most often of late citing Heller as they do so.

To Xelor: See number 2 in my brief list of priorities.

I'm not sure how to respond to this because of the risibly ambiguous term "gun-grabber."

To Xelor: Do not try since it goes over your head!

In light of the above, there is no question that criminals are a problem cited by individuals and groups on both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate.

To Xelor: See number 1 in my list of priorities.

The emboldened clause is among the most balmy things I've seen written on USMB. As a movie that directly, expressly and from a legal theory standpoint took on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the notion of "original intent," there probably aren't any widely viewed Hollywood movies of that nature. There are quite a few Hollywood movies that tacitly extol the virtues of gun ownership and their responsible/just use:

• Red Dawn -- High school kids in Michigan fight off communist invaders from Cuba.
• Gran Torino -- An aging Clint Eastwood saves his neighbors from gangbangers.
• The Hateful Eight -- Tarantino’s newest. EVERYBODY will be armed to the teeth!
• The Alamo -- No gun control in the 1830s, especially for the Mexicans.
• Shooter -- Arguably the best conspiracy theory movie since Parallax View.
• Lawless -- Essentially Bonnie and Clyde with even more guns.
• Justified -- A TV show.
• Dirty Harry
• Zombieland
• Big Jake -- Yes, even John Wayne gets in on the game.
• Fallout -- Another TV series, but it's clearly one that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.
• The Last Ship -- A TV series that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.

There is also no shortage of movies, including from the "black and white" era of film that portray the use of guns in the United States' seminal struggle against governmental tyranny. Then there are the movies -- all of them from the "black and white" era -- that while fewer in number nonetheless positively portray gun use in various fights against governmental tyranny and excess in various contexts associated with the battles that solidified the Revolutionary War win.

• The Buccaneer (1938)
  
• Captain Caution (1940) -- In the midst of the war of 1812, a British frigate fires upon a peaceful, unwitting mercantile ship. In the attack, the trader's captain is killed and the British take the surviving crew prisoner, including sailor Dan Marvin (Victor Mature) and the late captain's willful daughter Corunna Dorman (Louise Platt). In captivity, Marvin and Corunna form an uneasy alliance and, along with the other prisoners, plot an escape. Their goal: Reclaim their ship and avenge the murder of their captain.
  
• Mutiny (1952)
  
• Brave Warrior (1952)
  
• The Buccaneer (1958)

The scope of what you know of or don't know of is of no value to you or anyone one else. You really need to do more of something -- read more, get out more, etc. -- something whereby you make an effort to find out whether what you know of or don't know of is in fact the limit of what exists or has ever existed.

To Xelor: How come you did not include all of the Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris movies? Compare your choices to the countless touchy-feely movies about topics Democrats love so much. Hell, they even call many of those movies classics.

The fact is: Not one movie or TV show plotline ever dealt with the primary reason for the Second Amendment, or a hero fighting to defend it.

Who is Taqiyya the Liar?

To Xelor: My friends know it evolved from this:

From June of 2009 to this day he was Hussein in my messages. Happily, the number of liberals that flipped out was a bonus I never anticipated.

Yesterday I said this in another thread:​

As I said in the OP “The Democrat party has been the party of liars since Woodrow Wilson.” That has been a fact for so long it has fallen off the radar screen. On the other hand nobody seems to notice that Hussein singlehandedly implemented Islam’s justification for lying ——Taqiyya, (telling an outright lie) and —— Kitman (lies of omission):​

The Curse Lives On​

From this day forward I will refer to the messiah as Barack Taqiyya.

Just for the record the name change was prompted by the lies Democrats are telling in the fight over the immigration bill, plus the astronomical number of lies Democrats must tell to keep the Affordable Care Act from being repealed once that fight gets underway. Basically, repeatedly calling each Democrat a liar every time they lie is like water rolling off a duck’s back; so I thought I would bundle the liars under one name. After all, Barack Taqiyya is the biggest liar of them all.​

Name Change

Now out of all of that, particularly the red text, how do you arrive at the conclusion that criminals and protection from them and their deeds is an argument advanced by "gun-grabbers?"

To Xelor: Your gun control statistics avoid one fact:

Approximately 300,000,000 guns is the accepted number of guns in America. I don’t know how it breaks down, or how many of those guns the government has targeted for confiscation, but 300,000,000 is not enough guns in civilian hands. Here’s why:

I’m pretty sure the government has the names of every member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, gun clubs, and so on. That means the government knows where many of those 300,000,000 guns are located, while the Communists seized the opportunity to go all out for gun registration because of the school shooting in Connecticut. My point: It’s the number of guns the government does not know about from this day forward that count the most.

Incidentally, if you are not a member of the NRA, but support that organization’s efforts, I would advise you to make anonymous contributions.​

300,000,000 Is Not Enough

"The gun-grabbers are united behind one political strategy. Criminals are the problem."

To Xelor: Exactly so.

 

[Mudda]

No, just having more control over the guns and bullets, like, no lending your gun, serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner... Closing all the gun show loopholes... There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun... I have no problem with legal gun owners, but we need to break the link between gun manufacturers and evildoers, because the evildoers always seem to have guns from legal manufacturers. Is there so

To Mudda: The individual gun owner can make the choice. In short: You would give the choice to the government. That must end in MORE GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL.

Incidentally, will Obama’s Ready Reserve Corps require fingerprints so no one can pick up the gun and use it should one his people be killed or wounded in a revolution?

​

Obama is out of office, but his personal goon remains loyal to him. No other president in history controlled anything like that on tax dollars after they left office.

NOTE: Obama’s goon squad was funded in the ACA. Does anyone know if Obama’s Ready Reserve Corps was removed from Paul Ryan’s Obamacare-lite?

It's paranoid to think that they're coming after YOU.

To Mudda: It is a death wish to believe otherwise.

You don't care about people, especially children. I get it.

To Mudda: Your kind cares so much about children they butchered close to 60 million since 1973 and still counting.

The US hasn't won a war since WWII, and we needed help in that one.

To Mudda: The US has not declared war after WWII, but lost one thanks to Democrats and Woodrow Wilson:

Had America defeated the Communists in Vietnam, and in Korea, instead of fighting Peace Without Victory wars China would not be building islands with two American allies on its borders.​

Abolishing The Presidential Oath Of Office

It's not clear to me what "gun-grabber" means:

To Xelor: Keep reading the OP until you get it!

How the hell is it that you explicitly mention a Pew remark yet not one of your links in the OP takes one directly to original documentation of the alleged discrediting by Pew?

To Xelor: That is easy. I selected what I wanted to talk about.

The task of disarming (with regard to guns) criminals is impossible to achieve only if one defines the goal of doing so as disarming 100% of criminals of 100% of the access they might have to guns. It does not take 100% disarmament to effect a reduction in gun-related crime, deaths and injuries.

To Xelor: Local and state police forces are supposed to deal with criminals —— not the federal government.

I haven't seen credible and sound arguments from Democrats that asserts crime prevention is what the Founders had in mind by including among the BoR the 2nd Amendment.

To Xelor: Every talking point implies just that.

On the contrary, it's gun ownership advocates, typically conservatives, who proffer the crime and self-defense against it line of argumentation, most often of late citing Heller as they do so.

To Xelor: See number 2 in my brief list of priorities.

I'm not sure how to respond to this because of the risibly ambiguous term "gun-grabber."

To Xelor: Do not try since it goes over your head!

In light of the above, there is no question that criminals are a problem cited by individuals and groups on both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate.

To Xelor: See number 1 in my list of priorities.

The emboldened clause is among the most balmy things I've seen written on USMB. As a movie that directly, expressly and from a legal theory standpoint took on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the notion of "original intent," there probably aren't any widely viewed Hollywood movies of that nature. There are quite a few Hollywood movies that tacitly extol the virtues of gun ownership and their responsible/just use:

• Red Dawn -- High school kids in Michigan fight off communist invaders from Cuba.
• Gran Torino -- An aging Clint Eastwood saves his neighbors from gangbangers.
• The Hateful Eight -- Tarantino’s newest. EVERYBODY will be armed to the teeth!
• The Alamo -- No gun control in the 1830s, especially for the Mexicans.
• Shooter -- Arguably the best conspiracy theory movie since Parallax View.
• Lawless -- Essentially Bonnie and Clyde with even more guns.
• Justified -- A TV show.
• Dirty Harry
• Zombieland
• Big Jake -- Yes, even John Wayne gets in on the game.
• Fallout -- Another TV series, but it's clearly one that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.
• The Last Ship -- A TV series that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.

There is also no shortage of movies, including from the "black and white" era of film that portray the use of guns in the United States' seminal struggle against governmental tyranny. Then there are the movies -- all of them from the "black and white" era -- that while fewer in number nonetheless positively portray gun use in various fights against governmental tyranny and excess in various contexts associated with the battles that solidified the Revolutionary War win.

• The Buccaneer (1938)
  
• Captain Caution (1940) -- In the midst of the war of 1812, a British frigate fires upon a peaceful, unwitting mercantile ship. In the attack, the trader's captain is killed and the British take the surviving crew prisoner, including sailor Dan Marvin (Victor Mature) and the late captain's willful daughter Corunna Dorman (Louise Platt). In captivity, Marvin and Corunna form an uneasy alliance and, along with the other prisoners, plot an escape. Their goal: Reclaim their ship and avenge the murder of their captain.
  
• Mutiny (1952)
  
• Brave Warrior (1952)
  
• The Buccaneer (1958)

The scope of what you know of or don't know of is of no value to you or anyone one else. You really need to do more of something -- read more, get out more, etc. -- something whereby you make an effort to find out whether what you know of or don't know of is in fact the limit of what exists or has ever existed.

To Xelor: How come you did not include all of the Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris movies? Compare your choices to the countless touchy-feely movies about topics Democrats love so much. Hell, they even call many of those movies classics.

The fact is: Not one movie or TV show plotline ever dealt with the primary reason for the Second Amendment, or a hero fighting to defend it.

Who is Taqiyya the Liar?

To Xelor: My friends know it evolved from this:

From June of 2009 to this day he was Hussein in my messages. Happily, the number of liberals that flipped out was a bonus I never anticipated.

Yesterday I said this in another thread:​

As I said in the OP “The Democrat party has been the party of liars since Woodrow Wilson.” That has been a fact for so long it has fallen off the radar screen. On the other hand nobody seems to notice that Hussein singlehandedly implemented Islam’s justification for lying ——Taqiyya, (telling an outright lie) and —— Kitman (lies of omission):​

The Curse Lives On​

From this day forward I will refer to the messiah as Barack Taqiyya.

Just for the record the name change was prompted by the lies Democrats are telling in the fight over the immigration bill, plus the astronomical number of lies Democrats must tell to keep the Affordable Care Act from being repealed once that fight gets underway. Basically, repeatedly calling each Democrat a liar every time they lie is like water rolling off a duck’s back; so I thought I would bundle the liars under one name. After all, Barack Taqiyya is the biggest liar of them all.​

Name Change

Now out of all of that, particularly the red text, how do you arrive at the conclusion that criminals and protection from them and their deeds is an argument advanced by "gun-grabbers?"

To Xelor: Your gun control statistics avoid one fact:

Approximately 300,000,000 guns is the accepted number of guns in America. I don’t know how it breaks down, or how many of those guns the government has targeted for confiscation, but 300,000,000 is not enough guns in civilian hands. Here’s why:

I’m pretty sure the government has the names of every member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, gun clubs, and so on. That means the government knows where many of those 300,000,000 guns are located, while the Communists seized the opportunity to go all out for gun registration because of the school shooting in Connecticut. My point: It’s the number of guns the government does not know about from this day forward that count the most.

Incidentally, if you are not a member of the NRA, but support that organization’s efforts, I would advise you to make anonymous contributions.​

300,000,000 Is Not Enough

"The gun-grabbers are united behind one political strategy. Criminals are the problem."

To Xelor: Exactly so.

First of all, I don't read long-winded copy&paste, if you have a point make it, and post a link underneath if I want to check what you're saying or read more.
Secondly, the government already controls what kind of guns you're allowed to have. So they outgun you by a massive amount. And best of all? You bought it hook, line and sinker. So when you feel all badass, remember that you can only be as a badass as the government lets you. So be a good boy and keep pretending that you have some kind of freedom over guns.

 

[Flanders]

the government already controls what kind of guns you're allowed to have. So they outgun you by a massive amount.

To Mudda: Your lack of perspicacity is monumental.

The government controlled the guns in every country before the start of revolution. Government control did not stop the Communists in Czarist Russia, China, or Cuba. What do you think will happen in this country should the well-armed American people decide to overthrow their ruling class?

I have often pointed out that all revolutions come from the middle class, and then only when something has been taken away from them. The poor do not have the organizational skills necessary to foment successful revolution. The wealthy have no reason to revolt. In short: People never start a revolution to get something —— they always revolt to get something back.

All of the elements for revolution are there.

Parenthetically, I would not count on everybody in the US Military and local police forces killing fellow Americans on orders from the scum in the federal government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More interested in defending myself and my property from attacks by miscreants than attacks by the government

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

So long as cops the military and the Government have firearms crooks will.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No, just having more control over the guns and bullets, like, no lending your gun, serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner... Closing all the gun show loopholes... There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun... I have no problem with legal gun owners, but we need to break the link between gun manufacturers and evildoers, because the evildoers always seem to have guns from legal manufacturers. Is there so

To Mudda: The individual gun owner can make the choice. In short: You would give the choice to the government. That must end in MORE GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL.

Incidentally, will Obama’s Ready Reserve Corps require fingerprints so no one can pick up the gun and use it should one his people be killed or wounded in a revolution?

​

Obama is out of office, but his personal goon remains loyal to him. No other president in history controlled anything like that on tax dollars after they left office.

NOTE: Obama’s goon squad was funded in the ACA. Does anyone know if Obama’s Ready Reserve Corps was removed from Paul Ryan’s Obamacare-lite?

It's paranoid to think that they're coming after YOU.

To Mudda: It is a death wish to believe otherwise.

You don't care about people, especially children. I get it.

To Mudda: Your kind cares so much about children they butchered close to 60 million since 1973 and still counting.

The US hasn't won a war since WWII, and we needed help in that one.

To Mudda: The US has not declared war after WWII, but lost one thanks to Democrats and Woodrow Wilson:

Had America defeated the Communists in Vietnam, and in Korea, instead of fighting Peace Without Victory wars China would not be building islands with two American allies on its borders.​

Abolishing The Presidential Oath Of Office

It's not clear to me what "gun-grabber" means:

To Xelor: Keep reading the OP until you get it!

How the hell is it that you explicitly mention a Pew remark yet not one of your links in the OP takes one directly to original documentation of the alleged discrediting by Pew?

To Xelor: That is easy. I selected what I wanted to talk about.

The task of disarming (with regard to guns) criminals is impossible to achieve only if one defines the goal of doing so as disarming 100% of criminals of 100% of the access they might have to guns. It does not take 100% disarmament to effect a reduction in gun-related crime, deaths and injuries.

To Xelor: Local and state police forces are supposed to deal with criminals —— not the federal government.

I haven't seen credible and sound arguments from Democrats that asserts crime prevention is what the Founders had in mind by including among the BoR the 2nd Amendment.

To Xelor: Every talking point implies just that.

On the contrary, it's gun ownership advocates, typically conservatives, who proffer the crime and self-defense against it line of argumentation, most often of late citing Heller as they do so.

To Xelor: See number 2 in my brief list of priorities.

I'm not sure how to respond to this because of the risibly ambiguous term "gun-grabber."

To Xelor: Do not try since it goes over your head!

In light of the above, there is no question that criminals are a problem cited by individuals and groups on both sides of the 2nd Amendment debate.

To Xelor: See number 1 in my list of priorities.

The emboldened clause is among the most balmy things I've seen written on USMB. As a movie that directly, expressly and from a legal theory standpoint took on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the notion of "original intent," there probably aren't any widely viewed Hollywood movies of that nature. There are quite a few Hollywood movies that tacitly extol the virtues of gun ownership and their responsible/just use:

• Red Dawn -- High school kids in Michigan fight off communist invaders from Cuba.
• Gran Torino -- An aging Clint Eastwood saves his neighbors from gangbangers.
• The Hateful Eight -- Tarantino’s newest. EVERYBODY will be armed to the teeth!
• The Alamo -- No gun control in the 1830s, especially for the Mexicans.
• Shooter -- Arguably the best conspiracy theory movie since Parallax View.
• Lawless -- Essentially Bonnie and Clyde with even more guns.
• Justified -- A TV show.
• Dirty Harry
• Zombieland
• Big Jake -- Yes, even John Wayne gets in on the game.
• Fallout -- Another TV series, but it's clearly one that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.
• The Last Ship -- A TV series that presents positively the use of guns against tyranny.

There is also no shortage of movies, including from the "black and white" era of film that portray the use of guns in the United States' seminal struggle against governmental tyranny. Then there are the movies -- all of them from the "black and white" era -- that while fewer in number nonetheless positively portray gun use in various fights against governmental tyranny and excess in various contexts associated with the battles that solidified the Revolutionary War win.

• The Buccaneer (1938)
  
• Captain Caution (1940) -- In the midst of the war of 1812, a British frigate fires upon a peaceful, unwitting mercantile ship. In the attack, the trader's captain is killed and the British take the surviving crew prisoner, including sailor Dan Marvin (Victor Mature) and the late captain's willful daughter Corunna Dorman (Louise Platt). In captivity, Marvin and Corunna form an uneasy alliance and, along with the other prisoners, plot an escape. Their goal: Reclaim their ship and avenge the murder of their captain.
  
• Mutiny (1952)
  
• Brave Warrior (1952)
  
• The Buccaneer (1958)

The scope of what you know of or don't know of is of no value to you or anyone one else. You really need to do more of something -- read more, get out more, etc. -- something whereby you make an effort to find out whether what you know of or don't know of is in fact the limit of what exists or has ever existed.

To Xelor: How come you did not include all of the Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris movies? Compare your choices to the countless touchy-feely movies about topics Democrats love so much. Hell, they even call many of those movies classics.

The fact is: Not one movie or TV show plotline ever dealt with the primary reason for the Second Amendment, or a hero fighting to defend it.

Who is Taqiyya the Liar?

To Xelor: My friends know it evolved from this:

From June of 2009 to this day he was Hussein in my messages. Happily, the number of liberals that flipped out was a bonus I never anticipated.

Yesterday I said this in another thread:​

As I said in the OP “The Democrat party has been the party of liars since Woodrow Wilson.” That has been a fact for so long it has fallen off the radar screen. On the other hand nobody seems to notice that Hussein singlehandedly implemented Islam’s justification for lying ——Taqiyya, (telling an outright lie) and —— Kitman (lies of omission):​

The Curse Lives On​

From this day forward I will refer to the messiah as Barack Taqiyya.

Just for the record the name change was prompted by the lies Democrats are telling in the fight over the immigration bill, plus the astronomical number of lies Democrats must tell to keep the Affordable Care Act from being repealed once that fight gets underway. Basically, repeatedly calling each Democrat a liar every time they lie is like water rolling off a duck’s back; so I thought I would bundle the liars under one name. After all, Barack Taqiyya is the biggest liar of them all.​

Name Change

Now out of all of that, particularly the red text, how do you arrive at the conclusion that criminals and protection from them and their deeds is an argument advanced by "gun-grabbers?"

To Xelor: Your gun control statistics avoid one fact:

Approximately 300,000,000 guns is the accepted number of guns in America. I don’t know how it breaks down, or how many of those guns the government has targeted for confiscation, but 300,000,000 is not enough guns in civilian hands. Here’s why:

I’m pretty sure the government has the names of every member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, gun clubs, and so on. That means the government knows where many of those 300,000,000 guns are located, while the Communists seized the opportunity to go all out for gun registration because of the school shooting in Connecticut. My point: It’s the number of guns the government does not know about from this day forward that count the most.

Incidentally, if you are not a member of the NRA, but support that organization’s efforts, I would advise you to make anonymous contributions.​

300,000,000 Is Not Enough

"The gun-grabbers are united behind one political strategy. Criminals are the problem."

To Xelor: Exactly so.

To Xelor: Local and state police forces are supposed to deal with criminals —— not the federal government.

I see. From the statement above one can soundly infer that you favor abolishment of the FBI, the ATF, the Secret Service, the U.S. Park Police, ICE, and a host of other law enforcement arms of the federal government. You're entitled to think that, but actually doing so is utterly absurd.

To Xelor: Every talking point implies just that.

I don't care about "talking points;" people can and will say damn near anything. I care about soundly formed and presented premises, inferences and conclusions, and I care about and for the people who proffer them.

The fact is: Not one movie or TV show plotline ever dealt with the primary reason for the Second Amendment, or a hero fighting to defend it.

It appears you genuinely believe that despite that not at all being so. So be it for it is your right to so believe.

 

[Mudda]

More interested in defending myself and my property from attacks by miscreants than attacks by the government

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

So long as cops the military and the Government have firearms crooks will.

That makes no sense.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another example of the Paranoid Gun Crowd. Hopefully, the Feds get the mental-health-and-gun-ownership issue solved quickly.

All they have to do to fix that is ban liberals from getting guns. Problem solved. If it saves one child.....

Watching threads and posts, I long ago noticed this -

The only ^^^ "gun grabbers"^^^ are the gun nuts who actually don't care about or want to protect any part of the US Constitution, including the 2A.

Read 2aguy and other nutters, and you'll see the same thing.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

More interested in defending myself and my property from attacks by miscreants than attacks by the government

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

Such as?

infringing on MY rights?

No, just having more control over the guns and bullets, like, no lending your gun, serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner... Closing all the gun show loopholes... There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun... I have no problem with legal gun owners, but we need to break the link between gun manufacturers and evildoers, because the evildoers always seem to have guns from legal manufacturers. Is there something we can do to break that link?

You're hero is a thug, Al Capone, so you laugh at any attempt to talk about making guns safer. The only thing you want to know is safe are your gun stocks. You don't care about people, especially children. I get it.

It's true.

Talk about keeping kids safe from guns and you get a lot of smoke screens about cars and swimming pools or abortion.

They truly do not care about the piles of dead children.

It's beyond sad and sick.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[2aguy]

Calm don Ned, no one is going to take your toys

Except the 9th circuit court, the 4th Circuit court, the leadership of the democrat party.....you mean except for them? ...Oh.....and every lefty on the supreme court, don't forget them...

 

[2aguy]

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

Such as?

infringing on MY rights?

No, just having more control over the guns and bullets, like, no lending your gun, serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner... Closing all the gun show loopholes... There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun... I have no problem with legal gun owners, but we need to break the link between gun manufacturers and evildoers, because the evildoers always seem to have guns from legal manufacturers. Is there something we can do to break that link?

You're hero is a thug, Al Capone, so you laugh at any attempt to talk about making guns safer. The only thing you want to know is safe are your gun stocks. You don't care about people, especially children. I get it.

It's true.

Talk about keeping kids safe from guns and you get a lot of smoke screens about cars and swimming pools or abortion.

They truly do not care about the piles of dead children.

It's beyond sad and sick.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

No....you get the fact that 2nd Amendment supporters want gun safety education for kids in schools along with fire safety trainging.....and you guys refuse to allow it.....we want long sentences for actual, violent, repeat gun offenders...you guys fight it....

If anyone is endangering children, it is you.....

 

[2aguy]

Another example of the Paranoid Gun Crowd. Hopefully, the Feds get the mental-health-and-gun-ownership issue solved quickly.

All they have to do to fix that is ban liberals from getting guns. Problem solved. If it saves one child.....

If "liberals" agree to give up their guns, will you?

If left wingers give up their guns we won't have to....and the gun crime rate will disappear over night...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More interested in defending myself and my property from attacks by miscreants than attacks by the government

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

So long as cops the military and the Government have firearms crooks will.

That makes no sense.

Really? Weapons are stolen from all military and police sources routinely. The National Guard is very much a target of firearms thefts. Further so long as other Countries make firearms they are easily smuggled into this Country across our porous southern border and by ship and aircraft.

 

[2aguy]

More interested in defending myself and my property from attacks by miscreants than attacks by the government

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

We already have......we have laws that say they can't buy, own or carry guns and they can be arrested if they commit a crime with one...then guys like you refuse to lock them up for 30 years when they get caught...the problem isn't on our end, the problem is on your end...

 

[2aguy]

More interested in defending myself and my property from attacks by miscreants than attacks by the government

So would you be for or against trying to do something so that the miscreants don't have such easy access to guns?

Such as?

infringing on MY rights?

No, just having more control over the guns and bullets, like, no lending your gun, serial numbers on bullets to trace them back to the actual owner... Closing all the gun show loopholes... There are other more radical things like fingerprint safety, meaning only the fingerprint belonging to the owner can activate the gun... I have no problem with legal gun owners, but we need to break the link between gun manufacturers and evildoers, because the evildoers always seem to have guns from legal manufacturers. Is there something we can do to break that link?

Why should the government prevent you from lending legal property? Also, criminals are not getting their guns from people lending them....

Serial numbers on bullets...twit......they already tried it...it failed..

Also, the guy shooting the gun at the innocent victim isn't the one who originally owned it....so knowing the bullet number does nothing but cost money and prevents no crime and solves no crime....

And again, they tried it...

Maryland Scraps Firearms "Ballistic Fingerprinting" Effort, Admits It Was a Complete Waste of Time - The Truth About Guns

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case.

[…]

In a old fallout shelter beneath Maryland State Police headquarters in Pikesville, the state has amassed more than 300,000 bullet casings, one from each new handgun sold here since the law took effect. They fill three cavernous rooms secured by a common combination lock.

-----------
But the computerized system designed to sort and match the images never worked as envisioned. In 2007, the state stopped bothering to take the photographs, though hundreds of thousands more casings kept piling up in the fallout shelter.

The ballistic fingerprinting law was repealed effective Oct. 1, ending the requirement that spent casings be sent in. The General Assembly, in repealing the law, authorized the state police to sell off its inventory for scrap.

Did you catch that. The system never solved one…single…case.