The attempt to refrain the gun control debate

[beretta304]

The NRA is. And no it does not nullify the argument. Try to focus, mr dogbreath who named himself after a firearm... The argument is not mine or yours, so stop focusing on the poster for once in your life, and stay on the topic. A gun which did not fire rapidly would not have killed with such rapidity. Simple. That you can imagine other ways he could have killed massive numbers in such a small amount of time is not really relevant at all.

First of all dimbulb you started with the name calling so that NULLIFIES that angle. Your argument is not relative because now you want to shift gears and talk about how quickly the gun fires.

I'll bet you never fired a firearm in your life but naturally you'll deny that.


Your argument has little to no bearing on the issue of gun control.

Cars drive fast as well. So if one wants to kill by car just drive faster around the schoolyard...you'll kill more people. That's your argument's basis.

Of course it matters how rapidly the gun fires. You obviously haven't read my posts in this thread. Feel free to respond to them as opposed to your delusions...

I did read them...and? Put your point in your own words and lets' see where it goes. Neither I or anyone is denying that an assualt weapons fires faster than a handgun...

 

[Valerie]

First of all dimbulb you started with the name calling so that NULLIFIES that angle. Your argument is not relative because now you want to shift gears and talk about how quickly the gun fires.

I'll bet you never fired a firearm in your life but naturally you'll deny that.


Your argument has little to no bearing on the issue of gun control.

Cars drive fast as well. So if one wants to kill by car just drive faster around the schoolyard...you'll kill more people. That's your argument's basis.

Of course it matters how rapidly the gun fires. You obviously haven't read my posts in this thread. Feel free to respond to them as opposed to your delusions...

I did read them...and? Put your point in your own words and lets' see where it goes. Neither I or anyone is denying that an assualt weapons fires faster than a handgun...

I laugh at your control freak tendencies... You fail to articulate a valid argument for the necessity to have citizens bearing rapid-fire assault weapons. Whether you try or you don't, I don't take it personally, I'll just simply disagree. I await your convincing argument of "what good" lifting the ban has done...???

He could have run his mother over in the driveway then plow into the children at recess. How can you stop a violent impulse?

 

[KissMy]

I've been held at gunpoint 5 times by 7 different people with 7 different guns. It was illegal for them to do that to me every time. 4 out of those 5 times were in places where it was illegal for me or them to carry a gun, so I did not have one. Now that it is legal for me to have a gun, I have never had a gun pulled on me since. I know first hand for a fact that I am safer when everyone is allowed to be armed. Laws don't stop criminals, armed citizens do!

Oh, come one!!!! Where in the hell do you live??? Or maybe you're a member of organized crime. In any case, you are either leaving something out or your story is made up.

Just because you have political blinders on & don't want to hear the truth does not mean I made it up. I find it hard to believe that more people have not been held at gun-point. I think you people are repressing or lying about it. My friends & family tried to tell me the same line of bullshit you are peddling. Then it happened to many of us one day. Now they can't deny it & they don't want to discuss it any more. My entire family now packs heat including my hard core liberal mother & sister.

 

[Valerie]

Funny the dunce can't even get the quote function right. Take your words out of my quotes please.

 

[beretta304]

Of course it matters how rapidly the gun fires. You obviously haven't read my posts in this thread. Feel free to respond to them as opposed to your delusions...

I did read them...and? Put your point in your own words and lets' see where it goes. Neither I or anyone is denying that an assualt weapons fires faster than a handgun...

I laugh at your control freak tendencies... You fail to articulate a valid argument for the necessity to have citizens bearing rapid-fire assault weapons. Whether you try or you don't, I don't take it personally, I'll just simply disagree. I await your convincing argument of "what good" lifting the ban has done...???

He could have run his mother over in the driveway then plow into the children at recess. How can you stop a violent impulse?

I don't think you know what you're trying to argue. I'll make this so easy a dunce like you will get it.


Are they illegal to own now and are they constitutionaly banned? I didn't say it's a necessity. By the same token you're presenting wishful thinking and I'm telling you... like it is.


I'll ask you what good has the ban done?



"How can you stop a violent impulse?"

The above is my point to you? Ban assault weapons and there will still be the same types of incidents.

Now somehow read into that reality that I'm an advocate of assault weapons.

All I'm saying is you can't make a valid case for banning them because that's a band-aid on a wound that requires stitches.

 

[beretta304]

Funny the dunce can't even get the quote function right. Take your words out of my quotes please.

Was in the process, jerkoff. Focus on that and when you're finished try a real answer.

Better yet..

What exactly are you trying to say?

Go ahead and post it all by itself. That way I won't have to provide "cheese" for your "whine" about fixing a post.

 

[Valerie]

Let me make it simple. Please articulate your rationale for opposing the re-institution of an assault weapons ban. What is the basis of your argument?

 

[beretta304]

Let me make it simple. Please articulate your rational for opposing the re-institution of an assault weapons ban. What is the basis of your argument?

As soon as you show me where you mistakenly got that idea along with where I said it.

 

[Valerie]

Let me make it simple. Please articulate your rational for opposing the re-institution of an assault weapons ban. What is the basis of your argument?

As soon as you show me where you mistakenly got that idea along with where I said it.

Just can't get past your big ego, huh?

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said.

And? Not every one does...

So? It is not your "right" to own an assault weapon...

Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.



Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.


This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And the gun lobby—which opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checks—spends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.

During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.

In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.

The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organization’s 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.

Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.



How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

Thank you spineless dimwits of the GOP.

The dimwit is you because it doesn't specify what type. You'll be just as dead from a handgun as you will be from an automatic assault weapon. Last I checked dead is dead. Blame the gun genius, not the sick pup that used it.


Name something banned that stayed banned, meaning no one was ever able to get one again buy any means. Keep in mind there are millions of guns already out there. And if you can which I suspect you will(because as a leftwingnut you have to be right so you'll search endlessly) ...how many instances are there were banning worked.

And?

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

And? It won't stop incidents like this.

Uh yeah without the assault rifle, he Could have had to use the car instead. Who knows, they just may have had time to see that car coming, huh?

Gee, how come I can't register a NASCAR vehicle anyway?

 

[beretta304]

Of course it matters how rapidly the gun fires. You obviously haven't read my posts in this thread. Feel free to respond to them as opposed to your delusions...

I did read them...and? Put your point in your own words and lets' see where it goes. Neither I or anyone is denying that an assualt weapons fires faster than a handgun...

I laugh at your control freak tendencies... You fail to articulate a valid argument for the necessity to have citizens bearing rapid-fire assault weapons. Whether you try or you don't, I don't take it personally, I'll just simply disagree. I await your convincing argument of "what good" lifting the ban has done...???



I'll make this so easy a dunce like you will get it.


Are they illegal to own now and are they constitutionaly banned? I didn't say it's a necessity. By the same token you're presenting wishful thinking and I'm telling you like it is.


I'll ask you what good has the ban done?

He could have run his mother over in the driveway then plow into the children at recess. How can you stop a violent impulse?

I don't think you know what you're trying to argue. I'll make this so easy a dunce like you will get it.


Are they illegal to own now and are they constitutionaly banned? I didn't say it's a necessity. By the same token you're presenting wishful thinking and I'm telling you... like it is.


I'll ask you what good has the ban done?



"How can you stop a violent impulse?"

The above is my point to you? ban assault weapons and there will still be the same types of incidents.

Now somehow read into that reality that I'm an advocate of assault weapons.

All I'm saying is you can't amke a valid case for banning them because that's a band-aide on a wound that requires stitches.

 

[beretta304]

Let me make it simple. Please articulate your rational for opposing the re-institution of an assault weapons ban. What is the basis of your argument?

As soon as you show me where you mistakenly got that idea along with where I said it.

Just can't get past your big ego, huh?

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

And? It won't stop incidents like this.

Uh yeah without the assault rifle, he Could have had to use the car instead. Who knows, they just may have had time to see that car coming, huh?

Gee, how come I can't register a NASCAR vehicle anyway?

Keep dancing...

 

[Valerie]

As soon as you show me where you mistakenly got that idea along with where I said it.

Just can't get past your big ego, huh?

And? It won't stop incidents like this.

Uh yeah without the assault rifle, he Could have had to use the car instead. Who knows, they just may have had time to see that car coming, huh?

Gee, how come I can't register a NASCAR vehicle anyway?

Keep dancing...

Yes, you are attempting to make me dance with your flimsy posting demands and various personal delusions. Don't blame me for your failure to articulate a convincing argument to keep the bans lifted, which you appeared to be making by responding to my post, then claimed you are not even trying to make, speaking of dancing...?




PS - Please fix your quotes so that your words are not attributed to me.

 

[Valerie]

As soon as you show me where you mistakenly got that idea along with where I said it.

Just can't get past your big ego, huh?

And? It won't stop incidents like this.

Uh yeah without the assault rifle, he Could have had to use the car instead. Who knows, they just may have had time to see that car coming, huh?

Gee, how come I can't register a NASCAR vehicle anyway?

Keep dancing...

Yeah, your dancing IS lame, indeed... So far, you have submitted the argument that he could have rapidly killed those children by other means. You conveniently ignored the legal standard that assault weapons are "not used for other lawful purposes".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean other than they were whacked out, psycho cultists who killed themselves?

Waco was a mass suicide because a crazy person wouldn't give up his harem of child brides. Not that you can really blame Koresh, they do really bad things to child molestors in prison. Why the rest of them went along with it is kind of a mystery, but hey, religion can make you stupid like that.

As for background checks, if teh VA Tech Shooter and Loughner and Lanza and Joker Holmes could get guns, those background checks are insufficient.

Lanza stole the gun he used, care to explain how background checks prevent theft?

He stole it from his MOTHER. From the house he lived in. So maybe a background check wouldn't have gotten him, or maybe it would, because it's starting to look like his mother was as fucking crazy as he was.

(Hey, I notice you've backed away from the Koresh as victim thing.... good, you were really making yourself look stupid with that one.)

I did not back away from it, you conclusively proved that the children were wrong for being born to their parents instead of sane ones. I can't argue with genius like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Days of debate here on this topic and lots of nastiness back and forth and a cliche really says it all as lame as it is....guns don't kill, people do.

That's it in a nutshell.

You'll never control the sickness in people's minds.

A person can kill with a car, truck, bomb,...etc., etc.. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Ban any gun you wnat and criminals and crazies will find a way to get one.

Then why don't they have these kinds of incidents in countries where they tightly control gun ownership?

Like Germany?

Winnenden school shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or Norway?

2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or even England?

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Want me to keep going?

 

[beretta304]

Just can't get past your big ego, huh?



















Uh yeah without the assault rifle, he Could have had to use the car instead. Who knows, they just may have had time to see that car coming, huh?

Gee, how come I can't register a NASCAR vehicle anyway?

Keep dancing...

Yeah, your dancing IS lame, indeed... So far, you have submitted the argument that he could have rapidly killed those children by other means. You conveniently ignored the legal standard that assault weapons are "not used for other lawful purposes".

Like I said, when you're ready to state what it is you expect me to respond to that isn't common sense, let me know.


Aside from that you didn't post anything that you didn't say 5 posts ago.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why don't they have these kinds of incidents in countries where they tightly control gun ownership?

Research it and get back to us.

Swedish 'serial shooter' denies being behind string of racist murders and attacks against immigrants | Mail Online

I have. You had to go back two years to find an incident ANYWHERE of a mass shooting outside the US.

We can't go a week without one in this country, and you retards say, "Gee, if only those preschoolers were packing heat, we could have avoided a tragedy."

Probably a terrible idea outside the NRA crazy zone.

Last time I looked England has banned outright the ownership of guns for decades.

Nice backpedaling by the way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all I didn't say any such thing so don't give me that, "you retards" shit. And we hardly have one every few eeks.

But to the point, I don't see you saying how to stop it. You take law abiding citizens guns away then only criminals and crazies will have them.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. A true nujtob hell bent on shooting will find a way to get a gun or worse.

Guy, you've been watching too many movies.

Most crazy people are just... crazy. The problem with Cho and Loughner and Lanza was not that they were evil geniuses. It was that they were just able to get guns much too easily.

I've already made proposals.

Before we give you a gun, we do a thorough background check on you and everyone else who lives in that residence.

We treat guns like cars. YOu have to be trained, licensed and insured before you can drive around in one.

Will you still have the occassional guy who got his license pulled cracking up his car on a DUI? Probably. And you'll still have the guy who beats the system.

Will you cut down on the incidence? Definitely.

Good thing crazy people can't get their hands on guns in England, no one ever dies when they go off.

Unless they do.

Cardiff hit-and-run accused Matthew Tvrdon, 31, to be charged with 'murdering Karina Menzies and trying to kill 13 more¿ | Mail Online

 

[beretta304]

Just can't get past your big ego, huh?

















Uh yeah without the assault rifle, he Could have had to use the car instead. Who knows, they just may have had time to see that car coming, huh?

Gee, how come I can't register a NASCAR vehicle anyway?

Keep dancing...

Yes, you are attempting to make me dance with your flimsy posting demands and various personal delusions. Don't blame me for your failure to articulate a convincing argument to keep the bans lifted, which you appeared to be making by responding to my post, then claimed you are not even trying to make, speaking of dancing...?




PS - Please fix your quotes so that your words are not attributed to me.

Keep trying to tell me what I'm saying. Like I said inference is not a reply so you can infer anything you like as to what I said or meant.

Showing me what I ACTUALLY said and where and how you deduce that isn't something you've successfully accomplished.

I did fix it asshole...3 posts ago. And where does ego have anything to do with anything, dope?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting - CNN.com

And?

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

The only difference that would have made is that he would have had to reload, or switch weapons, more often. The fact is that, if the ban had still been in effect, and the weapons he were using were bought under the ban, he could have accomplished the exact same thing and only had to reload once or twice.

Want to explain why you think it would have made a difference?