The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home

[Conservative65]

Werent the first cops to respond in France armed?

Americans are armed and yet it hasnt stopped shootings and crimes here. So yeah France be like us?...More guns and more shootings?

Shootings here seem to occur in "gun free zones." SO how have those worked out?

Shootings happen all over the US. SO how has that worked out?

France should get more guns so they can have a thru the roof murder rate like America?

Guns would've stopped those guys over there but they dont in the US?

Damn those guns growing legs and arms so they can shoot themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

So under the 2nd Amendment you or I should be able to purchase a nuclear armed ICBM under that illogical rationale of yours.

Red herring fallacy noted! Rabbi Rules!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

So under the 2nd Amendment you or I should be able to purchase a nuclear armed ICBM under that illogical rationale of yours.

Red herring fallacy noted! Rabbi Rules!

FA_Q2 stated that all anyone has to do under 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM and they must be allowed to have one because there is no "need" to justify having one.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

So under the 2nd Amendment you or I should be able to purchase a nuclear armed ICBM under that illogical rationale of yours.

Reductio ad absurdum is not an argument or a point but you are well aware of that. I will not play into your need to commit logical fallacies after you have pointed out many others here doing the same.

When you have an actual point to make then I will bother addressing it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

So under the 2nd Amendment you or I should be able to purchase a nuclear armed ICBM under that illogical rationale of yours.

Red herring fallacy noted! Rabbi Rules!

FA_Q2 stated that all anyone has to do under 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM and they must be allowed to have one because there is no "need" to justify having one.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

 

[turtledude]

Actually, many of your fellow Communists/Progressives have openly stated they will continue fighting to abolish the 2nd Amendment. So when you guys say 'Gun Control', you do really mean a complete Gun Ban. Gun Owners will just have to stay vigilant and continue fighting for the Constitution.

Still nothing but your Gun Fetish Paranoia.

Yeah, you said that. Still isn't true. You Communists/Progressives do not stand for Freedom & Liberty and the Constitution. You will have to be vigorously opposed at at every turn.

Three times in a row he posts ipse dixit blanket strawmen. It's all he's ever done here.

I bet the next thing he posts when you call hiim out on it will be:
"Gay".

Nah, you Communists/Progressives' goal is to implement a complete Gun Ban. The term 'Gun Control' is just code for it. So you're not foolin anyone. It's 'death by a thousand cuts.' You're banning guns slowly and incrementally. You will have to be vigorously opposed.

If you give black men civil rights, next they will want to be President.

Now they want to be overlords and you will be calling the balck man boss...

Slippery Slope.

Who is this hysterical fairy and why does he talk to us as if we give a shit about his country?

 

[turtledude]

The Gun Fetishist Paranoia is strong in this one.

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

Got a link to support that?

its common sense. the only people who have a logical reason to fear honest people being armed are those most likely to be shot by honest people

criminals, for example, are huge fans of gun bans

Not really. There are like 20,000 accidental shootings each year and over 600 people accidently killed. Only about 230 criminals are killed each year in defense. I'm pretty sure criminals prefer they continue to have easy access to guns. They are the ones who are by far using guns the most.

well having been in the "special forces" when it comes to law enforcement, I can tell you criminals want gun bans.

 

[Brain357]

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

Got a link to support that?

its common sense. the only people who have a logical reason to fear honest people being armed are those most likely to be shot by honest people

criminals, for example, are huge fans of gun bans

Not really. There are like 20,000 accidental shootings each year and over 600 people accidently killed. Only about 230 criminals are killed each year in defense. I'm pretty sure criminals prefer they continue to have easy access to guns. They are the ones who are by far using guns the most.

well having been in the "special forces" when it comes to law enforcement, I can tell you criminals want gun bans.

And I think they really like having easy access to guns. They are very unlikely to be shot and killed so I don't think they are too worried.

 

[turtledude]

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

Got a link to support that?

its common sense. the only people who have a logical reason to fear honest people being armed are those most likely to be shot by honest people

criminals, for example, are huge fans of gun bans

Not really. There are like 20,000 accidental shootings each year and over 600 people accidently killed. Only about 230 criminals are killed each year in defense. I'm pretty sure criminals prefer they continue to have easy access to guns. They are the ones who are by far using guns the most.

well having been in the "special forces" when it comes to law enforcement, I can tell you criminals want gun bans.

And I think they really like having easy access to guns. They are very unlikely to be shot and killed so I don't think they are too worried.

as usual you are wrong again-criminals worry more about being shot by homeowners than jail or cops

do you know why the USA has so much more BURGLARIES than HOME INVASION ROBBERIES while countries with victim disarmament laws have a much closer ratio?

because CRIMINALS NORMALLY AVOID OCCUPIED HOUSES because they don't want to get SHOT

 

[Pogo]

"Gun control" is neither our problem nor our solution.

Gun fetishism -- that's our problem.

A comic strip?
All you can produce to support your statement is a comic strip?

Does that not tell you something?

The strip is not "support". It's graphic illustration of what's already been stated.
As the saying goes -- read it and weep.

Actually, that's not true.

When you posted the strip, nothing like that had been stated in this thread. You posted the strip and made your comment. It was a graphic illustration of the point you were trying to make....but your only "proof" to support your point, was a comic strip.

I know many gun owners...and none that walk around in a trance saying "yes safe"....

They live their lives feeling more secure just as people with house alarms live their lives feeling safe.

Or do you believe that people are also entranced by the thought of safety thanks to their home alarms?

Uh.... I've been stating it since the day I came to this board, Bub. It was the hot issue of the time and the whole point of my being here.

Your going around it doesn't change that.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Gun control" is neither our problem nor our solution.

Gun fetishism -- that's our problem.

A comic strip?
All you can produce to support your statement is a comic strip?

Does that not tell you something?

The strip is not "support". It's graphic illustration of what's already been stated.
As the saying goes -- read it and weep.

Actually, that's not true.

When you posted the strip, nothing like that had been stated in this thread. You posted the strip and made your comment. It was a graphic illustration of the point you were trying to make....but your only "proof" to support your point, was a comic strip.

I know many gun owners...and none that walk around in a trance saying "yes safe"....

They live their lives feeling more secure just as people with house alarms live their lives feeling safe.

Or do you believe that people are also entranced by the thought of safety thanks to their home alarms?

Uh.... I've been stating it since the day I came to this board, Bub. It was the hot issue of the time and the whole point of my being here.

Your going around it doesn't change that.

What was the point of the grossly inaccurate graphic then?

 

[Pogo]

"Gun control" is neither our problem nor our solution.

Gun fetishism -- that's our problem.

A comic strip?
All you can produce to support your statement is a comic strip?

Does that not tell you something?

The strip is not "support". It's graphic illustration of what's already been stated.
As the saying goes -- read it and weep.

Actually, that's not true.

When you posted the strip, nothing like that had been stated in this thread. You posted the strip and made your comment. It was a graphic illustration of the point you were trying to make....but your only "proof" to support your point, was a comic strip.

I know many gun owners...and none that walk around in a trance saying "yes safe"....

They live their lives feeling more secure just as people with house alarms live their lives feeling safe.

Or do you believe that people are also entranced by the thought of safety thanks to their home alarms?

Uh.... I've been stating it since the day I came to this board, Bub. It was the hot issue of the time and the whole point of my being here.

Your going around it doesn't change that.

What was the point of the grossly inaccurate graphic then?

There's nothing "inaccurate" about it; it sums up exactly what's going on in mass cultural mentality, expressed (in this version) as a hypnosis, which I find it an astute metaphor.

His point about 'home alarms' is of course wildly off the mark as comparison, as we don't have a 'home alarm fetish'. I think his defensive counterstrike shows that the comic strip did indeed touch a nerve.

And that's good. That's why I'm here.

 

[Esmeralda]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

So under the 2nd Amendment you or I should be able to purchase a nuclear armed ICBM under that illogical rationale of yours.

Reductio ad absurdum is not an argument or a point but you are well aware of that. I will not play into your need to commit logical fallacies after you have pointed out many others here doing the same.

When you have an actual point to make then I will bother addressing it.

He is making a point.The reductio ad absurdum he uses is a rhetorical device, not to be taken literally but to be understood as a rhetorical device. He's right. You do need to keep up.

 

[Esmeralda]

Liberal Hollywood makes big cash off guns, just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy.

You got that right. Was stuck watching a bunch of previews and every one had guns and shooting. They hate guns except when they make them $$$$. They are probably more pro gun than the nra.

They are making money. It is non-political. They are businesses making money, private enterprise, capitalism. The RW should be supporting them.

They don't expect anyone to take it seriously. It is entertainment. Action movies have plenty of car crashes too. Do you think they advocate car crashes?

Only right wing gun nuts take the role of guns in movies to the level of the role of guns in real life. They mimic what they see in the moves and truly believe that a 'real man' and a true 'tough guy' needs to have a firearm. Fools.

 

[Kosh]

Liberal Hollywood makes big cash off guns, just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy.

You got that right. Was stuck watching a bunch of previews and every one had guns and shooting. They hate guns except when they make them $$$$. They are probably more pro gun than the nra.

They are making money. It is non-political. They are businesses making money, private enterprise, capitalism. The RW should be supporting them.

They don't expect anyone to take it seriously. It is entertainment. Action movies have plenty of car crashes too. Do you think they advocate car crashes?

Only right wing gun nuts take the role of guns in movies to the level of the role of guns in real life. They mimic what they see in the moves and truly believe that a 'real man' and a true 'tough guy' needs to have a firearm. Fools.

Even more proof how the far left religion is the most dangerous religion the planet.

 

[Geaux4it]

Werent the first cops to respond in France armed?

Americans are armed and yet it hasnt stopped shootings and crimes here. So yeah France be like us?...More guns and more shootings?

Disarm America and there will be more shootings as you don't know the impact an armed society currently has. IOW, things could be worse if society wasn't armed.

The few shootings we do have is the cost we endure for freedom

I like my odds

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

Liberal Hollywood makes big cash off guns, just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy.

You got that right. Was stuck watching a bunch of previews and every one had guns and shooting. They hate guns except when they make them $$$$. They are probably more pro gun than the nra.

They are making money. It is non-political. They are businesses making money, private enterprise, capitalism. The RW should be supporting them.

They don't expect anyone to take it seriously. It is entertainment. Action movies have plenty of car crashes too. Do you think they advocate car crashes?

Only right wing gun nuts take the role of guns in movies to the level of the role of guns in real life. They mimic what they see in the moves and truly believe that a 'real man' and a true 'tough guy' needs to have a firearm. Fools.

I think many kids do also. They don't own guns yet of course, but they idolize these gun toting heroes in the movies.

 

[Brain357]

Got a link to support that?

its common sense. the only people who have a logical reason to fear honest people being armed are those most likely to be shot by honest people

criminals, for example, are huge fans of gun bans

Not really. There are like 20,000 accidental shootings each year and over 600 people accidently killed. Only about 230 criminals are killed each year in defense. I'm pretty sure criminals prefer they continue to have easy access to guns. They are the ones who are by far using guns the most.

well having been in the "special forces" when it comes to law enforcement, I can tell you criminals want gun bans.

And I think they really like having easy access to guns. They are very unlikely to be shot and killed so I don't think they are too worried.

as usual you are wrong again-criminals worry more about being shot by homeowners than jail or cops

do you know why the USA has so much more BURGLARIES than HOME INVASION ROBBERIES while countries with victim disarmament laws have a much closer ratio?

because CRIMINALS NORMALLY AVOID OCCUPIED HOUSES because they don't want to get SHOT

Pretty sure they avoid occupied houses cause they don't want to get caught and it's easier. Their chance of a successful theft goes down drastically if someone is home.

 

[Jarhead]

A comic strip?
All you can produce to support your statement is a comic strip?

Does that not tell you something?

The strip is not "support". It's graphic illustration of what's already been stated.
As the saying goes -- read it and weep.

Actually, that's not true.

When you posted the strip, nothing like that had been stated in this thread. You posted the strip and made your comment. It was a graphic illustration of the point you were trying to make....but your only "proof" to support your point, was a comic strip.

I know many gun owners...and none that walk around in a trance saying "yes safe"....

They live their lives feeling more secure just as people with house alarms live their lives feeling safe.

Or do you believe that people are also entranced by the thought of safety thanks to their home alarms?

Uh.... I've been stating it since the day I came to this board, Bub. It was the hot issue of the time and the whole point of my being here.

Your going around it doesn't change that.

What was the point of the grossly inaccurate graphic then?

There's nothing "inaccurate" about it; it sums up exactly what's going on in mass cultural mentality, expressed (in this version) as a hypnosis, which I find it an astute metaphor.

His point about 'home alarms' is of course wildly off the mark as comparison, as we don't have a 'home alarm fetish'. I think his defensive counterstrike shows that the comic strip did indeed touch a nerve.

And that's good. That's why I'm here.

It is your opinion that we have a "gun fetish"....but it is by no means a fact. So all you have to support your theory that we have a "gun fetish" is a comic strip.....but as I have said, I have not seen anyone walking the streets in a trance saying "yes, safe" with their eyes in a stare as the comic strip depicts.
So all you have to support your theory is a comic strip.
Which is exactly what I said in my first post.
And your comic strip did not touch a nerve as you seem to want to believe. It simply showed me how weak you are in your position and I capitalized on it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Werent the first cops to respond in France armed?

Americans are armed and yet it hasnt stopped shootings and crimes here. So yeah France be like us?...More guns and more shootings?

Disarm America and there will be more shootings as you don't know the impact an armed society currently has. IOW, things could be worse if society wasn't armed.

The few shootings we do have is the cost we endure for freedom

I like my odds

-Geaux

taking away the rights of free men does not make

anyone safer