Some Simple FACTS About Disarming Americans

[ski87]

hahaha, there ya go...precisely. I for one can take a pass on the man card and still enjoy sport shooting with my .9mm. I don't see any "Red Dawn" type of scenarios in the near future.

 

[jillian]

Amen. And you might want to note that they kicked the crap out of the USSR not so long ago.

i haven't heard anyone say they want to take away guns.

just clips that can hold 30 rounds of ammo and military style weapons.

tighten up on the background checks.

you think civilians are entitled to more than that?

you guys are the biggest whiners on the planet.

 

[KissMy]

Believe It or Not Mass Killings Are Not on the Rise, They Are on the Decline

The assault with gun rate for the entire country dropped faster than cities with gun bans. Gun violence rose by comparison in cities with gun bans. There was an immediate changes in society around 1992 & it was not from government.

November 7, 1991, basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson stuns the world by announcing he tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Within 2 months the number of people getting tested for aids was up 50%. Illegitimate birth rates dropped within 9 months. Heroin & other injected drug use that had been soaring since 1960 slowed their accent.

The country sobered up a bit & quit sharing IV drug needles. People quit having as many orgies, as much sex with strangers & not without protection. Maybe even settled down & married. This must have reduce the financial stress of illegitimate births & drug use, thus lowered the crime rate. Two parent structure households create the best well adjusted children. Single parent & divorced households & unwanted children create criminals.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not a damn lib, I happen to own a glock .9mm. The context is a bit different now than it was in colonial America, the 2nd Amendment ensures the right to bear arms, not military assault rifles. Grown-ups know to make the distinction and purchase the glock or hunting rifle. As far as home defense, if I ever need anything more than the 17 rounds that my glock carries, its game over anyways.

Let's go ahead and re-examine even the remote chance that a slight curtailment of this amendment could save lives. I for one will support Diane Feinstein and will be looking to see this bill progress after it hits the senate floor.

Curtailing rights does not make people safer, dude. It only empowers the crooks, in and out of office.

Why not look around at who has stopped such attacks and emulate them, like Isreal and Thailand?

Because that doesnt lead to disarming the American people? Yep.

 

[JimBowie1958]

i haven't heard anyone say they want to take away guns.

Then you are a cosmic ignoramus. Hell Shulz was just demanding that and when the gun grabbing whores are being honest they admit that there is no such thing as having a safe amount of guns anyway.

just clips that can hold 30 rounds of ammo and military style weapons.

Typical stupidassery from another libtard. What is it about style that makes an AR-15 more lethal than a Browning BAR?

you think civilians are entitled to more than that?

We are entitled by God with the right to be able to defend ourselves against a hostile invasion or tyrany.

you guys are the biggest whiners on the planet.

And you are the stupidest ass wipe on the planet.

 

[gallantwarrior]

"Why is a gun more important than a human life?"

Guns aren't. But freedom and the US Constitution are. Many lives were spent to obtain and keep them.

Please tell me - because from the gun nuts here, they don't seem to be showing much sympathy toward the dead kids, just about the thought of their guns being taken away.

Because this tragedy has far less to do with guns and much, much more to do with the way we tolerate, even protect and promote this kind of evil. It's about years of systematic dismantling of those societal elements that maintain civility. Destruction of the family, destruction of the moral underpinnings that forbid such actions.
You are young, and have been raised in a foreign place. You might never truly understand why freedom is of such great importance to Americans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Have your .9mm handgun or your .30-06 and call it a day like normal people...the only reason civilians even have the bushmasters is to look and feel like billy bad ass at the range or to make up for something else that they lack, like self-esteem, juz sayin...

Hunting and home defense was not the purpose of the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm not a damn lib, I happen to own a glock .9mm. The context is a bit different now than it was in colonial America, the 2nd Amendment ensures the right to bear arms, not military assault rifles. Grown-ups know to make the distinction and purchase the glock or hunting rifle. As far as home defense, if I ever need anything more than the 17 rounds that my glock carries, its game over anyways.

Let's go ahead and re-examine even the remote chance that a slight curtailment of this amendment could save lives. I for one will support Diane Feinstein and will be looking to see this bill progress after it hits the senate floor.

the 2nd Amendment ensures the right to bear arms, not military assault rifles.

Wrong as wrong can be.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

And
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

Do us honest gun owners a favor and turn you firearms in you are a danger to us all.

 

[ski87]

Have your .9mm handgun or your .30-06 and call it a day like normal people...the only reason civilians even have the bushmasters is to look and feel like billy bad ass at the range or to make up for something else that they lack, like self-esteem, juz sayin...

Hunting and home defense was not the purpose of the second amendment.

Ya, I know, just as any 5th grade history student knows as well. I suppose we need our arsenal of assault weapons to protect ourselves from the encroaching tyrannical government that we all live under. Oops too late, IP address tracked.....please stand by... some gentlemen will be by your house in a bit to collect all of your weapons.


Note sarcasm

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So...if anyone tried to take your guns away, the people would rise up and shoot and kill anyone who tried to take away their weapons?

Why is a gun more important than a human life?

And, why is a TV set more valuable than a human life?

That's what the gun nutters say. That they'll kill anyone who tries to steal some small THING from them.

Fetuses have value but human beings don't.

A tv can't save the life of anyone but a firearm can.
You don't have a constitutional protected right to a TV but you do have one for a firearm.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Have your .9mm handgun or your .30-06 and call it a day like normal people...the only reason civilians even have the bushmasters is to look and feel like billy bad ass at the range or to make up for something else that they lack, like self-esteem, juz sayin...

Hunting and home defense was not the purpose of the second amendment.

Ya, I know, just as any 5th grade history student knows as well. I suppose we need our arsenal of assault weapons to protect ourselves from the encroaching tyrannical government that we all live under. Oops too late, IP address tracked.....please stand by... some gentlemen will be by your house in a bit to collect all of your weapons.


Note sarcasm

For the purpose of the second amendment yes you should have enough weapons and ammo for all weapons that you have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why is a gun more important than a human life?"

Guns aren't. But freedom and the US Constitution are. Many lives were spent to obtain and keep them.

Please tell me - because from the gun nuts here, they don't seem to be showing much sympathy toward the dead kids, just about the thought of their guns being taken away.

Likely because they know that further restrictions will do little to save future lives – just as restricting or banning abortion won’t end abortion.

There’s also a legitimate concern that gun owners won’t be afforded due process, that legislation might be enacted based on ignorance of guns and gun violence, not facts, where further restrictions are put into place predicated not on evidence but emotion.

This is not to say gun owners have no emotion, or are devoid of empathy for the families of those slain; rather, they’re just as dedicated to finding actual solutions to the problem of gun violence, not measures clearly ineffective.

 

[eots]

Please tell me - because from the gun nuts here, they don't seem to be showing much sympathy toward the dead kids, just about the thought of their guns being taken away.

There has been overwhelming sympathy toward the dead kids. The only NUTS here are the ones climbing on the pile of dead children & using them for a soap box to take away our freedoms before their bodies were even cold or the facts have come out.

Why wait until the facts come out? We know the facts - a gun was used to murder 28 people.

but even if you got rid of every gun he could of just run them over at a bus stop..set the place on fire any number of ways for a crazy person to cause death

 

[asterism]

There has been overwhelming sympathy toward the dead kids. The only NUTS here are the ones climbing on the pile of dead children & using them for a soap box to take away our freedoms before their bodies were even cold or the facts have come out.

Why wait until the facts come out? We know the facts - a gun was used to murder 28 people.

Facts known. It was an AR-15, an assault weopon. The gunman had several 30 shot clips, all loaded with ammo designed to inflict maximum damage to the human body. They worked.

There are huge numbers of these and other assault weopons in our nation now. And the number of shootings like this is on the rise.

At the same time, the fruitloops here and in the NRA are claiming what is needed is more guns.

That's inaccurate. An AR-15 is not the preferred weapon for close quarter combat and the 5.56 round is not designed to inflict maximum damage on the human body. A shotgun with slugs or .32 cal rounds is far more effective. An MP5 with hollow points is also.

The AR-15 with a collapsable stock and short barrel is a patrolling weapon, useful for medium range (50-200 yards) combat. The 5.56mm rounds are designed for accuracy at targets too far for the above mentioned weapons.

 

[WillowTree]

So...if anyone tried to take your guns away, the people would rise up and shoot and kill anyone who tried to take away their weapons?

Why is a gun more important than a human life?

That's the main reason for the second amendment, to protect the citizen from a gov. Of tyranny should it ever decide to become tyrannical.

 

[JoeB131]

First, lets look at the most recent track record, the Afghanistan War.

Afghanistan is a nation of a fairly backward population of 30 million who have only recently begun to modernise at all. The insurgency there consists of about 25,000 Taliban.

The US has put about 100,000 troops there alongside about 450,000 fully trained and equipped Afghan national forces. One soldier for every 60 AFghans, roughly.

So, outnumbering the Taliban nearly 20 to 1 and fighting for nearly twelve long years, we have been bled financially, morally and physically to the point that regardless of the likely collapse of the freindly regime, we are pulling out no matter what by end of next year.

So the taliban will win and any honest analysis would show this.

But here in the US, we have well over 300 million people who are tech savy and who own more than 270 million firearms and the ratio of Americans to US standing forces is like one to a hundred. And Americans have a highly trained cadre of experienced military that many of whom would be very effective at fighting a partisan war against a President that most of them hate and despise.

Anyone who cant see the dangers frought with a civil war in such a context is either ignorant, stupid or a fucking traitor who wants to see our nation destroyed from the ground up.

Guy, that has to be the most retarded thing you've posted yet, and I know you are trying.

Afghanistan's problem is that they've been fighting tribal or civil wars for decades. The idea we could get them all to love each other was Hubris.

But most Americans would be horrified if you gun nutters actually stop talking shit about overthrowing the government and actually tried it.

You need to go back to the 1990's, when the "militia movement' was hot for a while, until people got fed up with them.

 

[ski87]

"Why is a gun more important than a human life?"

Guns aren't. But freedom and the US Constitution are. Many lives were spent to obtain and keep them.

Please tell me - because from the gun nuts here, they don't seem to be showing much sympathy toward the dead kids, just about the thought of their guns being taken away.

Likely because they know that further restrictions will do little to save future lives – just as restricting or banning abortion won’t end abortion.

There’s also a legitimate concern that gun owners won’t be afforded due process, that legislation might be enacted based on ignorance of guns and gun violence, not facts, where further restrictions are put into place predicated not on evidence but emotion.

This is not to say gun owners have no emotion, or are devoid of empathy for the families of those slain; rather, they’re just as dedicated to finding actual solutions to the problem of gun violence, not measures clearly ineffective.

That's all nice in principle and packaged so eloquently. But the fact remains that these mass killings...as random as they are, are committed with assault rifles. If you read the testimony of the eyewitnesses, they all report that most of the killings were committed with the Bushmaster AR-15. These weapons are designed to do just that, produce mass casualties and do not need to be available to the general public. MOST, yes MOST gun owners are responsible and safe and are appropriately trained, but if just one of these assault rifles gets into the hands of an emotionally disturbed kid then it's too late. One look at a horrific scene of bloodshed and all of that "right to bear arms" shit takes a backseat to the tragedy. So this new legislation probably is a knee jerk and emotional reaction but if it saves 1 life than it is worth it. This new legislature simply intends to reenact the federal assault weapons ban, not seize your hunting rifles and handguns but restrict the availability of this class of weaponry to the general public and I wholeheartedly agree. As a gun owner myself, I will be perfectly content to be limited to my handgun and possibly a hunting rifle, I can leave my ego at the door in the interest of the greater good. I for one will support Diane Feinstein when she takes this to the Senate floor. My .02 cents.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Please tell me - because from the gun nuts here, they don't seem to be showing much sympathy toward the dead kids, just about the thought of their guns being taken away.

Likely because they know that further restrictions will do little to save future lives – just as restricting or banning abortion won’t end abortion.

There’s also a legitimate concern that gun owners won’t be afforded due process, that legislation might be enacted based on ignorance of guns and gun violence, not facts, where further restrictions are put into place predicated not on evidence but emotion.

This is not to say gun owners have no emotion, or are devoid of empathy for the families of those slain; rather, they’re just as dedicated to finding actual solutions to the problem of gun violence, not measures clearly ineffective.

That's all nice in principle and packaged so eloquently. But the fact remains that these mass killings...as random as they are, are committed with assault rifles. If you read the testimony of the eyewitnesses, they all report that most of the killings were committed with the Bushmaster AR-15. These weapons are designed to do just that, produce mass casualties and do not need to be available to the general public. MOST, yes MOST gun owners are responsible and safe and are appropriately trained, but if just one of these assault rifles gets into the hands of an emotionally disturbed kid then it's too late. One look at a horrific scene of bloodshed and all of that "right to bear arms" shit takes a backseat to the tragedy. So this new legislation probably is a knee jerk and emotional reaction but if it saves 1 life than it is worth it. This new legislature simply intends to reenact the federal assault weapons ban, not seize your hunting rifles and handguns but restrict the availability of this class of weaponry to the general public and I wholeheartedly agree. As a gun owner myself, I will be perfectly content to be limited to my handgun and possibly a hunting rifle, I can leave my ego at the door in the interest of the greater good. I for one will support Diane Feinstein when she takes this to the Senate floor. My .02 cents.

You are in favor of banning automobiles, then? I mean, if we prevent one auto-related death, it would all be worth it. Wow, and think of the health impact when all of us have to walk everywhere we need to go! I'm pretty sick of that worn-out "if it prevents one death" bullshit talking point. There are plenty of ways people die every day. Maybe we should ban them all. Or wait, maybe we should all wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and sit at home, typing on some forum or watching TV. The government can pay to support us and no one would need to work ever again. And we'd all be absolutely safe from death.
Yeah...that's the ticket alright!

 

[ski87]

Poor analogy, cars are not designed to produce mass casualties, assault rifles are designed specifically for this. We as a nation have to ask ourselves; have we done everything possible to stop events like this from occurring. Let's not make it easy for disturbed people to carry out these acts of violence, and just maybe this will allow for an intervening authority to enter before another tragedy occurs. I'm sure all of us gun owners can do without having military style weaponry in our households, I know I can, our 2nd amendment right to bear arms will still be well preserved.

 

[hardicon]

I think most of you that want to ban guns are missing the point. most americans dont have military style weapons, we have a few guns in our home, some might have a ar15 or something like it in their home.

the point that we worry about is where does it stop. democrats have been slowly eroding away our freedoms since franklin d. roosevelt and they are doing it in ways that seem beneficial at first. Look at welfare, when it was implemented many people were starving, it sounded like a good plan. now look at welfare, fraud is rampant in the system, able bodied people that wont work are getting paid by the government to do nothing and surprise surprise crime in high welfare areas is also high. overall a welfare recipient is a slave to this government, they depend on this government to clothe and feed them so they must do what this government says.

If you think our current democrats are any better than the nazis in germany you are naive. given the same amount of power they will do the same things Hitler did if not worse.

restrict guns now, wait several years for another tragedy to happen, restrict again until nothing is left. eventually you get to a point where the liberals control the country and they enslave the population. it is already happening, just look at how many laws are passed every year.

some of you are apparantly ok with being slaves to this government, and ok with the idea of slavery, but im not.

oh and as far overthrowing the government in some bloody revolution, that is not the way to handle it. firearms are just simply a means of making sure the government cant take over fully and if you dont think the citizens can be effective fighting a government go look at history, the american revolution, the french revolution and im sure many other examples, the citizens will win, there are more of us. all it takes is the citizens to realize they have nothing left to lose and are gonna die anyway so they might as well die fighting. why do you think we have entitlement programs, to keep the poor pacified and stupid, not because the politicians care about human life.