The liberal elites who are protected by guns are giving money to stop the rest of US from having gun

[Mikeoxenormous]

George Clooney and Oprah donate $500,000 each to Washington march against gun violence

George Clooney and Oprah donate $500,000 each to Washington march against gun violence

Right-wing conspiracy theorists blame George Soros for teenage survivors' anti-gun activism

Right-wing Conspiracy Theorists Blame Anti-Gun Rallies and Teen Activism on George Soros

How many more people who are protected by people with guns will donate towards the march on Washington DC so We the People cannot keep weapons that protect US? This quote comes to mind when the Reichstag was burned back in the 1930's. If you don't know about this event, go look it up, because stupid people like you are the reason why Tyranny happens. The NWO is once again rearing its ugly face..That face is George Soros..

 

[debbiedowner]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's?

Which gun here should be banned?

This one...................................................or this one.........................

 

[usmbguest5318]

Should you listen to elites who have armed bodygaurds, but want you to give up your weapons?

Whether one should depends on the following:

• Whether the individual(s) speaking are presenting ideas (i.e, bases for those ideas) that are sound/cogent.
• Whether the individuals speaking are articulate enough that one need not possess psychic powers to accurately and completely understand their messages.

The fact that the speakers'...

• are or are not elite, or
• have or don't have bodyguards, armed or otherwise,

...has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone deserves to be listened to.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's?

Which gun here should be banned?

This one...................................................or this one.........................
View attachment 178079 View attachment 178080

I cannot, based solely on a photo, attest to whether I think any given gun should be banned. I don't know anyone who can or would.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's?

Which gun here should be banned?

This one...................................................or this one.........................
View attachment 178079 View attachment 178080

I cannot, based solely on a photo, attest to whether I think any given gun should be banned. I don't know anyone who can or would.

You heard from the flamer Debbie, that all AR-15s should be banned. I just want to know which weapon I showed should be banned?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's?

Which gun here should be banned?

This one...................................................or this one.........................
View attachment 178079 View attachment 178080

I cannot, based solely on a photo, attest to whether I think any given gun should be banned. I don't know anyone who can or would.

You heard from the flamer Debbie, that all AR-15s should be banned. I just want to know which weapon I showed should be banned?

With no disrespect for you or Debbie:

1. As goes Debbie:
   • I haven't heard anything from Debbie.
   • Do you know Debbie? I don't.
   • Does Debbie have a decision-making or key-influencer role in the decision to ban any guns?
2. As goes the question you asked in connection with the photos:
   • Why are you asking the question of her? She already shared what guns she wants to see banned and, apparently, you understood what she wrote. She wants to ban AR-15s. Because you already know the answer, you've asked a question that doesn't need to be asked and that asking doesn't advance the conversation....
     • What do you expect she'll suddenly do? Have a different answer?
     • EDIT:
       • Because you already know she wants to ban all AR-15s, you know that if either gun you pictured is an AR-15, it's one she'd like to see banned. You picked the images; thus you presumably know what guns they depict, and if you do, then you know whether she'd want to ban either.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

The 1994 ban did nothing so what will be different this time ?

 

[Moonglow]

No one has told me to give up my weapons.. But then again I don't listen to people that tell me what to do...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

The 1994 ban did nothing so what will be different this time ?

That you can declare as feckless the Brady bill does not make your declaration be true.

​

Gun Homicides in General:

From the chart above, one sees that

• So-called assault weapons are in the "other guns" group, and one can see their use and that of shotguns and non-assault rifles held pretty steady before, during and shortly after the Brady bill's tenure. The use of assault weapons to commit teh homicides of the "other guns" group is not determinable by the chart's information.
• The use of all guns, except those in the "other guns" category, to commit homicides dropped during the Brady bill period.
• The guns most often producing homicides were handguns, not "other guns."
• It's not clear why the Brady bill's tenure coincides with a drop in handgun homicide rates but not "other guns" homicide rates.

From the chart above and with regard to the impact of the Brady bill, one may:

• Ascribe preponderantly to the Brady bill the dip in gun-related homicides between 1994-2004, or
• Ascribe the dip in gun-related homicides between 1994-2004 to the Brady bill and other things, or
• Ascribe preponderantly to other causes the dip in gun-related homicides between 1994-2004.

Of the three:

• If one chooses the second option, one must also identify and soundly show what, along with the Brady bill, effected the dip.
• If one chooses the third option, one must soundly identify (1) how the Brady bill had no impact on the trend/dip, (2) what did cause the dip, and (3) show how in fact it did.

Mass Shootings:

As for the Brady bill's impact on mass shooting events, well, at least looking at the charts below, it looks like that legislation had an impact. The options pertaining to whether it did or didn't are the same as those noted above re: homicides in general:

• Ascribe preponderantly to the Brady bill the dip in mass shooting events between 1994-2004, or
• Ascribe the dip in mass shooting events between 1994-2004 to the Brady bill and other things, or
• Ascribe preponderantly to other causes the dip in mass shooting events between 1994-2004.

And, as with homicides in general:

• If one chooses the second option, one must also identify and soundly show what, along with the Brady bill, effected the dip.
• If one chooses the third option, one must soundly identify (1) how the Brady bill had no impact on the trend/dip, (2) what did cause the dip, and (3) show how in fact it did.

To folks who say the Brady bill had no impact on mass shootings:

• What that came into being around 1994 and ceased to exist sometime around 2004 that caused the increase in mass shootings? Show a sound basis for agreeing with whatever be the asserted cause.
• Why not re-implement, reinforce or in some other way boost the effectiveness of whatever that "thing(s)" or phenomenon(-a)?

I can identify something that definitely didn't cause the dip in mass shootings: an increase in gun ownership. Why can I say that? Because between 1994 and 2004, both the rate of household gun-non-ownership and the quantity of household gun-non-ownership generally increased between 1994 and 2004. [1] It wasn't a generally huge increase, but that non-ownership rates increased at all means that "more guns" couldn't have been a causal factor in the dip in mass shootings during the same period. So, while I can't say the Brady bill was solely or preponderantly causal in mass shooting incident decreases, I know that far more likely was it causal than was increased gun ownership, which is a phenomenon that didn't in the bill's tenure happen.

Indeed, even the most cursory glance at the trend of mass shootings, not to mention closer consideration, shows that with regard to the central objective of reducing mass shooting events/deaths, during the Brady bill's effectivity period (1994-2004), the annual mass shooting rate decreased by ~22%. Moreover, in the decade following the Brady bill's effectivity period, the annual mass shooting rate increased by ~261%.

​

Furthermore, not only did the annual mass shooting rate drop during the tenure of the Brady bill, after the Brady bill, the quantity of mass shooting deaths soared.

If, as the Washington Post did, one considers the period from 1900 to 2004 (104 years), there were 118 mass shootings. That's an average of 1.13 mass shooting incidents per year. In the eight years following the Brady bill's expiration, there were 28 mass shooting events. That equals an average of 3.5 a year -- an increase of over 200 percent. That is a startling jump, by any measure. Even considering a shorter time window -- 1982 to 1994 (12 years) -- one observes that there were 19 shootings, an average of 1.5 shootings a year.

The preceding informs us that something happened in the early-1980s [2] that catalyzed a material uptick in the incidence of mass shootings, and that something. One can infer as much from the first chart in this post wherefrom it's clear that 1982 marked the end of​

Note:

1. To illustrate the limits on the nature of what may and may not be inferred from various data trends. Careful readers who clicked on the link I provided will observe that the rate/quantity of gun permit rejections varied over the the tenure of the Brady bill (Table 1). Insofar as the rate/quantity of permit requests, along with the rejection reasons, is absent, the metric on rejections is of no use in the discussion here.
   
2. Why the early 1980s rather than the mid 1980s? Well, as anyone who learned differentiation can tell you, one approaches a local minimum or maximum of a curve, the rate of change changes at either an increasing or decreasing rate. Even not having studied calculus, one can see that by drawing a series of tangent lines along a curve; the slope of the tangent lines will will get either steeper or less steep.
   
   Drawing Tangent Lines Approach
   
   
   
   
   
   Calculus Approach
   
   
   
   
   Obviously, the point of the above isn't to suggest that one needs to do any math, for one does not. One need only understand the concept of slope-change as it applies to curvilinear trends/behavior to realize that something caused the steepness of the slope to start being less steep. (The point of taking math beyond basic algebra, is, after all, to allow one to understand things, not to perform "fancy" math calculations.) Pivotal changes cause so-called "overall" upswings or downswings in a trend's (curve's) direction, whereas minor changes cause "bumps/dips" in a trend.
   
   So, looking at the first chart in this post, one sees that in 1986, there was a "bump" (math term for that is "local maximum") in a nonetheless upswinging trend, and in 1987, there was a "dip relative to 1986" ("local minimum"), but the trend was nonetheless upswinging. I'll leave readers to try to apply the concepts described here to accurately analyze the remainder of the curves shown in the main body of this post.

 

[Silent Warrior]

The libs aren't trying to ban assault weapons, they want to ban all weapons that look like assault weapons. Since to be an assault weapon it has to have fully automatic capability, and they are already banned without a special FFL, and the civilian models don't have that capability it is all a smoke screen. Some libs even claim that the AR in AR15 stands for Assault Rifle instead of its actual definition of Armalite Rifle. It's all in the words.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

George Clooney and Oprah donate $500,000 each to Washington march against gun violence

George Clooney and Oprah donate $500,000 each to Washington march against gun violence

Right-wing conspiracy theorists blame George Soros for teenage survivors' anti-gun activism

Right-wing Conspiracy Theorists Blame Anti-Gun Rallies and Teen Activism on George Soros

How many more people who are protected by people with guns will donate towards the march on Washington DC so We the People cannot keep weapons that protect US? This quote comes to mind when the Reichstag was burned back in the 1930's. If you don't know about this event, go look it up, because stupid people like you are the reason why Tyranny happens. The NWO is once again rearing its ugly face..That face is George Soros..

Straw man fallacy.

Liberals do not want keep people form having guns, the notion is a ridiculous rightwing lie.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

George Clooney and Oprah donate $500,000 each to Washington march against gun violence

George Clooney and Oprah donate $500,000 each to Washington march against gun violence

Right-wing conspiracy theorists blame George Soros for teenage survivors' anti-gun activism

Right-wing Conspiracy Theorists Blame Anti-Gun Rallies and Teen Activism on George Soros

How many more people who are protected by people with guns will donate towards the march on Washington DC so We the People cannot keep weapons that protect US? This quote comes to mind when the Reichstag was burned back in the 1930's. If you don't know about this event, go look it up, because stupid people like you are the reason why Tyranny happens. The NWO is once again rearing its ugly face..That face is George Soros..

Straw man fallacy.

Liberals do not want keep people form having guns, the notion is a ridiculous rightwing lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...iberals-dont-want-to-admit-about-gun-control/

Take a prohibition on assault weapons, one of the most common proposals. The ban might make mass shootings less deadly, but most homicides are committed with handguns.

Oops, nothing to see here, move along, move along...

 

[MindWars]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?

by John A. Sutter
in California

For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality. But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.

The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere. Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business. At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.

The next thing you’ll get from the government is an official looking notice that they think you still have a firearm. Their information will probably include all the information from registration forms, right down to the serial number. That notice will tell you that you’re in violation of the law, subject to prosecution and imprisonment. It will give you some period of time to surrender the gun. It will also give you a very limited number of days to return the form with an explanation of why you don’t have the gun, any proof you have, and your signature that the gun was lawfully disposed of. For many people the idea that the government “knows” they didn’t turn in that pistol or rifle and they have the detailed information about it will be enough to get them to surrender the gun. Some people will ignore the letter, others will scrawl a note that “I sold this in 1982 in a private sale”. After some time, the government will figure out how many guns are still out there and what the “compliance rate” is with the gun ban. More importantly, they’ll start sorting their database by the number of guns someone supposedly has “unaccounted”.

If you think they’ll come at these multiple-gun owners with a swat team, guess again. Their most likely tactic will be yet another letter (maybe two more) that generate what they’ll call “insufficient responses”. That means they can’t track a gun after you owned it. This they’ll use as fodder for a search warrant and/or perjury charges at a later date if they can. My guess is that the time between April and August will be a bad time for a lot of “former” gun owners. Remember that the BATF is an arm of the Treasury department and they control the IRS. You’ll probably get a notice in the mail that the IRS has some questions about your taxes or wants to audit you. When you make the appointment to visit the IRS they will pass that information to the BATF. While you are sweating over your deductions, the BATF and local police will execute a search warrant and search your home looking for guns. With you safely off site and distracted, essentially forced into “the royal presence” of the IRS they will snag your guns. Expect them to use slow-scan and ground penetrating radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc. You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved. Yes, they’ll search your car in the IRS parking lot too.
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

 

[MindWars]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's?

Which gun here should be banned?

This one...................................................or this one.........................
View attachment 178079 View attachment 178080

I cannot, based solely on a photo, attest to whether I think any given gun should be banned. I don't know anyone who can or would.

You heard from the flamer Debbie, that all AR-15s should be banned. I just want to know which weapon I showed should be banned?

This guy does a great job telling these idiots about ar 15's . proving how stupid these a.h. really are about them MSM and all. They make their sheep so gawd dam dumbed down Jesus Cripe these leftist gun grabbers have the brains of a gawd dam jelly fish!!!

THERE AGAIN MSM AND SHADOW GOVERNMENT REALIZES JUST HOW FKN STUPID THESE LEFTIST FKS ARE.

A video posted to Facebook Friday debunking the term “assault weapon” has gone mega viral.

Viewed nearly 7 million times at the time of publication, the video, created by Facebook user Danny Farnsworth, dismantles the myth that the AR-15 is any different than countless other rifles.


EPIC: Gun Owner Dismantles Left’s AR-15 Talking Points in Viral Facebook Post

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's?

Which gun here should be banned?

This one...................................................or this one.........................
View attachment 178079 View attachment 178080

I cannot, based solely on a photo, attest to whether I think any given gun should be banned. I don't know anyone who can or would.

You heard from the flamer Debbie, that all AR-15s should be banned. I just want to know which weapon I showed should be banned?

Seeking to ban a specific type of firearm is not to seek to ban all firearms, it's a lie to maintain otherwise.

 

[Witchit]

The libs aren't trying to ban assault weapons, they want to ban all weapons that look like assault weapons. Since to be an assault weapon it has to have fully automatic capability, and they are already banned without a special FFL, and the civilian models don't have that capability it is all a smoke screen. Some libs even claim that the AR in AR15 stands for Assault Rifle instead of its actual definition of Armalite Rifle. It's all in the words.

 

[August West]

Who's talking about taking your guns other than AR-15's? Who's talking about repealing the 2nd amendment other than the rw? If you live in Florida they are talking about taking your porn.

The 1994 ban did nothing so what will be different this time ?

How do you know it did nothing?