The Real Effort Over Gun Control

[CrotchetyGeezer]

A law that would make the sale, manufacture and distribution of assault weapons to private citizens also effects the criminal's access to them.

History suggests otherwise. Other countries, states here in the US, and cities across the nation that have banned various types of firearms and/or accessories have not only failed to keep them from the hands of criminals, their rates of violent and gun-related crime INCREASED following their bans. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

So again, you're only putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Fucking insane.



Has never happened in the past, not even in countries with a virtual ban on civilian owned firearms. But maybe you have the magic beans that will make criminals obey the law???



There were never as many wild boar as their are today. You said there was no justification for an AR platform. You're wrong.



The bill of rights proves you wrong on that one. Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

They are weapons built for war. The second amendment protects you from tyranny by calling loudly for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not your drinking buddies, a couple of pick up trucks and AR-15s.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. But if it would make you feel better, I'm happy to call my fellow firearm owners a militia.

In the mean time, you're free to disarm yourself, cowing the corner of a gun free zone and hope those criminals and crazies will abide by the rules. Good luck.

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

The same place people got alcohol during prohibition? As well as smuggling them in from other countries? Are you honestly this stupid? Where did Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India get their ability to build nuclear weapons, even though the UN had prohibited the sale of such weapons and parts and pieces to build such weapons you complete and utter nincompoop? I mean...really? What, you think people are incapable of making these weapons simply because the government might say they can't? How hard would it really be to make a gun? Most any machine shop has the tools to make a gun. You act as if one needs to be a PhD holding scientist in order to make a gun. What kind of unimaginable sheltered type of life are you living? Or, are you just so naive it's beyond comprehension?

 

[beagle9]

Here's my proposal:

A complete ban on the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession if all assault weapons, high capacity magazines and any and all weapons with automatic firing systems. A buy back program and full amnesty for those who currently hold such weapons and accessories. That buy back would be a voucher for a tax credit on the full market value of such weapons and accessories. This buy back/amnesty period would be for one year. Following that year, anyone in possession of the banned weapons and accessories is subject to a $100,000 fine and one year in federal prison. Anyone committing a crime with any such weapon is subject to a mandatory sentence of no less than three and no more than ten years in federal prison.

An immediate closing of the "gun show loophole" where sales are not accompanied by a back ground check. A federal tax on all ammunition of 75%.

If this analogy only pertained to the criminals ok, but why does it pertain to the good citizens as well ?

If I could and currently do own these weapons, and I was A- ok as far as my mental goes, then how about levying that fine against anyone who would steal my weapons and are caught with them later ?

I love shooting weapons and owning them, and I have always owned weapons of all sorts in my life, just as many others I know do also, but you want to use these tragedies to disarm me and my friends ?

Why?

Are you afraid of people like me and my friends, or are you afraid of the criminals more?

We might be the next to save your life from an attacker with any kind of a weapon, but if you have your way, we would show up with a butter knife if saw you being killed.

The guns. We're all tired of suffering from the fire power of assault weapons. no one is afraid of you, until your gun kills someone. And you aren't going to be the sheriff and ride to the rescue with your '"cool" guns. Stop this delusion.

You sure of that ?

 

[Nosmo King]

History suggests otherwise. Other countries, states here in the US, and cities across the nation that have banned various types of firearms and/or accessories have not only failed to keep them from the hands of criminals, their rates of violent and gun-related crime INCREASED following their bans. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

So again, you're only putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Fucking insane.



Has never happened in the past, not even in countries with a virtual ban on civilian owned firearms. But maybe you have the magic beans that will make criminals obey the law???



There were never as many wild boar as their are today. You said there was no justification for an AR platform. You're wrong.



The bill of rights proves you wrong on that one. Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. But if it would make you feel better, I'm happy to call my fellow firearm owners a militia.

In the mean time, you're free to disarm yourself, cowing the corner of a gun free zone and hope those criminals and crazies will abide by the rules. Good luck.

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

The same place people got alcohol during prohibition? As well as smuggling them in from other countries? Are you honestly this stupid? Where did Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India get their ability to build nuclear weapons, even though the UN had prohibited the sale of such weapons and parts and pieces to build such weapons you complete and utter nincompoop? I mean...really? What, you think people are incapable of making these weapons simply because the government might say they can't? How hard would it really be to make a gun? Most any machine shop has the tools to make a gun. You act as if one needs to be a PhD holding scientist in order to make a gun. What kind of unimaginable sheltered type of life are you living? Or, are you just so naive it's beyond comprehension?

A prisoner can make a zip gun. Idiots with no sense of responsibility can make a gun. But those aren't the weapons tearing up playgrounds and theaters and temples, are they? No, it's the assault weapon that puts the "mass" in "mass shooting'. There is not justification for assault weapons in the hands of anyone other than "well regulated militias". Get the assault weapon and the accessories that feed ammunition into them at a rate no one needs other than soldiers. Such weapons create havoc and are not worth the argument that they are needed by the public.

Now, tell me what tyranny is! Is it taxation or some politics you disagree with? What is tyranny according to you?

 

[Nosmo King]

If this analogy only pertained to the criminals ok, but why does it pertain to the good citizens as well ?

If I could and currently do own these weapons, and I was A- ok as far as my mental goes, then how about levying that fine against anyone who would steal my weapons and are caught with them later ?

I love shooting weapons and owning them, and I have always owned weapons of all sorts in my life, just as many others I know do also, but you want to use these tragedies to disarm me and my friends ?

Why?

Are you afraid of people like me and my friends, or are you afraid of the criminals more?

We might be the next to save your life from an attacker with any kind of a weapon, but if you have your way, we would show up with a butter knife if saw you being killed.

The guns. We're all tired of suffering from the fire power of assault weapons. no one is afraid of you, until your gun kills someone. And you aren't going to be the sheriff and ride to the rescue with your '"cool" guns. Stop this delusion.

You sure of that ?

I'm not only sure of that, but I'm also sure that the cost of assault weapons on our streets is too high when measured against your need for them.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The Civil Rights Movement was a non-violent movement.

That's called a non sequitur. While you're right about that civil rights movement, it does not change the fact that slavery and oppression of Blacks required those folks first be disarmed. It worked then. It won't work again.

The violence came from individuals with racist ideas and firepower.

True. The same individuals that first disarmed their enemy. Again, just like you're advocating.

I cire the Civil rights movement as a legitimate response to tyranny. African Americans, to their credit, did not resort to armed conflict the way some guns nuts would. They took the responsible course, not the reckless one. Tyranny was suppressed WITHOUT resorting to open warfare. Americans would not support the slaughter some reactionary gun nuts seem to think is necessary to maintain freedom.

Un-freakin'-believable! Honestly...dude, your flamboyant ignorance is seriously getting on my last nerve.

Define "armed conflict" and, does it look anything like this?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

Whether stolen or purchased on the black market, either from the tens of millions already in existence or illegally imported, you cannot prevent law breakers from obtaining firearms. It's not exactly rocket science to build a firearm...and a magazine is nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can ban whatever you like, the criminals will ALWAYS have what you keep only from law abiding citizens.



Here's the rub...your ban will NOT prevent crazy motherfuckers from doing crazy things. The only way to stop this assholes is a good guy with AT LEAST equal firepower. Your laws ensure the good guys are at a tactical disadvantage. Insane.

It has nothing to do with comparing hunting to massacres. You want to stop the massacres, the worst thing you can do is restrict law abiding citizens ability to do so.

And just calling your buddies a militia hardly comes to the threshold of the constitutional phrase "well regulated", does it?

Well regulated means well armed. We are well armed because those that would test our inalienable right to self defense are also armed. Again, you're free to sing Kumbaya if that's what YOU think will work.

We must take "mass" out of "mass shootings". What makes "mass" shootings possible? The assault weapon. America suffers more "mass" shootings than any other country. Why? We have more assault weapons in the hands of people other than "well regulated militia" than any other country. There simply is no justification for assault weapons. None. None at all.

We have to start to get such weapons off our streets. They belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Well regulated DOES NOT MEAN WELL ARMED. It means WELL REGULATED! Written at a time the best armed soldiers could fire three aimed shots per minute, the second amendment includes the salient phrase "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" It's high time we took that advise and rid ourselves of the scourge of assault weapons.

We do not extinguish fires with gasoline. Putting arms in everyone's hands to prevent gun violence is as nonsensical as a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline.

Your interpretations of the Second Amendment don't mean squat. So keep it...tweaker.

 

[Nosmo King]

That's called a non sequitur. While you're right about that civil rights movement, it does not change the fact that slavery and oppression of Blacks required those folks first be disarmed. It worked then. It won't work again.

True. The same individuals that first disarmed their enemy. Again, just like you're advocating.

I cire the Civil rights movement as a legitimate response to tyranny. African Americans, to their credit, did not resort to armed conflict the way some guns nuts would. They took the responsible course, not the reckless one. Tyranny was suppressed WITHOUT resorting to open warfare. Americans would not support the slaughter some reactionary gun nuts seem to think is necessary to maintain freedom.

Un-freakin'-believable! Honestly...dude, your flamboyant ignorance is seriously getting on my last nerve.

Define "armed conflict" and, does it look anything like this?

Armed conflict looks like this:

and this:

and this:

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

We must take "mass" out of "mass shootings".

Again, restricting firearms to law abiding citizens will NOT accomplish this goal. It will only hinder the ability to respond to a armed criminal, be it a mass shooting, a home invasion, or a thug willing to kill a store clerk.



First, we're FAR from the only country to experience mass killings. The worst examples of which were NOT in America. It's also worth noting that mass killings are on the DECLINE in America, with far fewer each decade. The peak for mass killings in America? 1929. Fact.

Also, it's entirely possible to kill lots and lots of people without a so called assault weapon. People been doing it for thousands of years.



You've already been proven wrong on that one. I understand you WISH they were never invented, but this is the real world. As such, criminals will have these weapons no matter what you attempt to ban. It makes no sense to give them an edge against good people.



Been tried here in America. Didn't work. Been tried in many other countries, including those that virtually banned ALL civilian firearm ownership. Didn't work there either. In fact, violent crime increased and mass killings continue to occur.



I would agree with you, but you're wrong. Supreme court settled the issue. Sucks for the tyrants and gun grabbers, good for liberty.



Back to la la land I see...

We do not extinguish fires with gasoline. Putting arms in everyone's hands to prevent gun violence is as nonsensical as a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline

So when you're cowering in the corner of a gun free zone as the crazy motherfucker is shooting innocent victim after victim, and a guy with a semi auto pistol takes out his sidearm to stop him, you gonna lay that asinine analogy on him...or will you be thankful someone saved your ass?

Either way, I really don't care. You go unarmed. The rest of us will remain prepared.

You love to say things like "back to la la land" as is you are completely satisfied with living in Columbine or Aurora or New Town. Well, I'm not satisfied with living in a nation so under the allure of gun violence that some propose more gun violence to stop it. Most Americans want this cycle of killing to stop. Most Americans are not under some esoteric delusion that because the second amendment says "not infringed" we must take it as a death sentence or the 'price" of freedom.

Assault weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Not a gaggle of idiots with fear motivating them about some perceived tyranny. Tyranny exists. The tyranny of the marginal thinker, the reactionary, the self styled Rambo who does not recognize the deadly consequence of his adolescent mindset.

Since there is no justification for assault weapons, there must be an outright ban on them and it must start today. No one should have assault weapons. Criminals, thugs, private citizens. We must sweep them from our streets, prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale and possession for our own good.

Back to la-la-land.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

you love to say things like "back to la la land" as is you are completely satisfied with living in columbine or aurora or new town. Well, i'm not satisfied with living in a nation so under the allure of gun violence that some propose more gun violence to stop it. Most americans want this cycle of killing to stop. Most americans are not under some esoteric delusion that because the second amendment says "not infringed" we must take it as a death sentence or the 'price" of freedom.

Assault weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Not a gaggle of idiots with fear motivating them about some perceived tyranny. Tyranny exists. The tyranny of the marginal thinker, the reactionary, the self styled rambo who does not recognize the deadly consequence of his adolescent mindset.

Since there is no justification for assault weapons, there must be an outright ban on them and it must start today. No one should have assault weapons. Criminals, thugs, private citizens. We must sweep them from our streets, prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale and possession for our own good.

Let the tyrants who insist we must have them in our midst argue their case before the parents of the victims of such weapons. Let those gun nut tyrants explain the virtue of a weapon designed for war in the hands of private citizens. It's a loosing case, as common sense and logic cannot be brought to the defense of war weapons.

In the fog and confusion of a mass shooting, the last thing needed would be more bullets flying around innocent people. If you actually believe that more guns would prevent mass shootings, why did an assailant manage to wound four with six shots while in the midst of an armed cadre? John hinckley wounded four, including the president of the united states. That president was surrounded by secret service and district of columbia police officers, all armed and proficient in firearms of all sorts. Yet all those guns did nothing to prevent hinckley from wounding four. Hinckley was a private citizen with a gun.

when you're ready to propose something that doesn't result in criminals having superior firepower to law abiding citizens, i'll listen. Until then, you're advocating that which puts more good people at the mercy of crazies, criminals, and tyrants. Pass.

here's my proposal:

A complete ban on the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession if all assault weapons, high capacity magazines and any and all weapons with automatic firing systems. A buy back program and full amnesty for those who currently hold such weapons and accessories. That buy back would be a voucher for a tax credit on the full market value of such weapons and accessories. This buy back/amnesty period would be for one year. Following that year, anyone in possession of the banned weapons and accessories is subject to a $100,000 fine and one year in federal prison. Anyone committing a crime with any such weapon is subject to a mandatory sentence of no less than three and no more than ten years in federal prison.

An immediate closing of the "gun show loophole" where sales are not accompanied by a back ground check. A federal tax on all ammunition of 75%.

fail!

 

[Nosmo King]

Again, restricting firearms to law abiding citizens will NOT accomplish this goal. It will only hinder the ability to respond to a armed criminal, be it a mass shooting, a home invasion, or a thug willing to kill a store clerk.



First, we're FAR from the only country to experience mass killings. The worst examples of which were NOT in America. It's also worth noting that mass killings are on the DECLINE in America, with far fewer each decade. The peak for mass killings in America? 1929. Fact.

Also, it's entirely possible to kill lots and lots of people without a so called assault weapon. People been doing it for thousands of years.



You've already been proven wrong on that one. I understand you WISH they were never invented, but this is the real world. As such, criminals will have these weapons no matter what you attempt to ban. It makes no sense to give them an edge against good people.



Been tried here in America. Didn't work. Been tried in many other countries, including those that virtually banned ALL civilian firearm ownership. Didn't work there either. In fact, violent crime increased and mass killings continue to occur.



I would agree with you, but you're wrong. Supreme court settled the issue. Sucks for the tyrants and gun grabbers, good for liberty.



Back to la la land I see...

So when you're cowering in the corner of a gun free zone as the crazy motherfucker is shooting innocent victim after victim, and a guy with a semi auto pistol takes out his sidearm to stop him, you gonna lay that asinine analogy on him...or will you be thankful someone saved your ass?

Either way, I really don't care. You go unarmed. The rest of us will remain prepared.

You love to say things like "back to la la land" as is you are completely satisfied with living in Columbine or Aurora or New Town. Well, I'm not satisfied with living in a nation so under the allure of gun violence that some propose more gun violence to stop it. Most Americans want this cycle of killing to stop. Most Americans are not under some esoteric delusion that because the second amendment says "not infringed" we must take it as a death sentence or the 'price" of freedom.

Assault weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Not a gaggle of idiots with fear motivating them about some perceived tyranny. Tyranny exists. The tyranny of the marginal thinker, the reactionary, the self styled Rambo who does not recognize the deadly consequence of his adolescent mindset.

Since there is no justification for assault weapons, there must be an outright ban on them and it must start today. No one should have assault weapons. Criminals, thugs, private citizens. We must sweep them from our streets, prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale and possession for our own good.

Back to la-la-land.

What is the virtue of an assault weapon? Why is it so important that private citizens have them? Does the virtue of an asault weapon out weigh the safety of our innocents? Is having an assault weapon worth the havoc they produce?

I know we'll never rid ourselves of crazies. I know that there will always be gun shootings. I want to know why some are satisfied with the level of gun violence in America to the point they are unwilling to cede their assault weapons. The cost of these weapons is measured in the blood of children. Are they worth it? What is the virtue of an assault weapon/

 

[Nosmo King]

when you're ready to propose something that doesn't result in criminals having superior firepower to law abiding citizens, i'll listen. Until then, you're advocating that which puts more good people at the mercy of crazies, criminals, and tyrants. Pass.

here's my proposal:

A complete ban on the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession if all assault weapons, high capacity magazines and any and all weapons with automatic firing systems. A buy back program and full amnesty for those who currently hold such weapons and accessories. That buy back would be a voucher for a tax credit on the full market value of such weapons and accessories. This buy back/amnesty period would be for one year. Following that year, anyone in possession of the banned weapons and accessories is subject to a $100,000 fine and one year in federal prison. Anyone committing a crime with any such weapon is subject to a mandatory sentence of no less than three and no more than ten years in federal prison.

An immediate closing of the "gun show loophole" where sales are not accompanied by a back ground check. A federal tax on all ammunition of 75%.

fail!

Why? Or can you frame a solution?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

To those who believe that we need guns to "fight tyranny":

What ever do you mean by that? A gaggle of idiots with assault rifles slung across their shoulders IS tyranny, not the defenders against it. The second amendment calls LOUDLY for a well regulated militia. That's where assault weapons belong, not on the streets.

The people are the militia...dumbass. The gaggle of so-called "idiots" you speak of where those revolutionaries who gave you this country to be spouting your mouth off in.



Don't have to join the National Guard or State Police. And, besides, I wouldn't feel too confident in a blue state's National Guard or State Police.



Who's speaking exclusively of today? And, yes, we are seeing it today. And, you and yours are the arbiters of things to come. To try and infringe upon Americans' Constitutional rights is tyranny. Which, is what you and yours are trying to do.



Sure they do.



No they don't and, they're not gonna' be. At least on any federal level.

The only tyranny I see is the tyranny of the gun nut who insists we must suffer the deadly consequences of assault weapons as a price for his 'freedom'.

That's because you're an idiot and haven't the first clue as to what "tyranny" is.

A "Blue State's National Guard" Has your warped partisan ignorance blinded you to the facts of gun deaths?

My lack of confidence in a blue state's National Guard and state police has nothing to do with gun deaths. Has to do with no confidence in a blue state's National Guard and state police in the face of a repressive government.

Are you so under the influence of ignoramuses like Limbaugh and Hannity that you would sell out the safety of America so you can make a ham handed political point?

You have no standing to be giving sermons about selling out the safety of America. You're selling out the safety of America, and Americans' Constitutional rights, based on your emotions.

Are you so politically insulated that you think the public's safety is guarded better by reactionaries and neo Nazis?

No, the public's safety is better guarded by gun owners. That you label them "reactionaries" and "neo Nazis" is your spiel.

Just that line: And, besides, I wouldn't feel too confident in a blue state's National Guard or State Police. shows you are not responsible enough to make a valid point, let alone lead the fight to shovel more guns on society.

That you have this naive notion that, somehow, by some miracle of some magical invisible force, assault weapons are going to miraculously disappear off the face of the earth shows you're too utterly stupid and naive to make a valid point about anything whatsoever. Go back to your rubber room and tell the nurse you need your meds.

What? You would not feel too comfortable under the protection of a "Blue State's" National Guard or State Police?!?

Not in the face of a repressive government.

That's the poison of hack political partisanship that is killing the spirit of America!

You've got no standing to be talking about "poison of hack political partisanship"...cretin.

You should be ashamed!!

I am. You're an embarrassment to human kind.

And those of you with similar, I guess I'll call them "thoughts" should go straight to Hell for the damage your ignorance and hatred has spawned. Divisions so bitter, so unthought out, so irresponsible are what is wrong with this country today! Shame on you for such stupidity!

STFU you holier-than-thou phony-assed jerkoff. You have no standing to be giving lectures to ANYONE about partisanship and any damage anyone's ignorance and hatred has spawned you uppity prick! Your ignorance is clearly beyond reproach and you've demonstrated your hatred of legal law-abiding gun owning American citizens quite nicely. Even though you have absolutely no justification whatsoever to do so, you automatically preclude that if one owns an assault rifle and/or higher capacity magazine, they're another Tim McVeigh waiting in the wings or are inherently prone to go Adam Lanza at any given moment. You sit there and come up with all sorts of derogatory musings about gun owners without one iota of justification for doing so. So, just shut your fucking trap about partisanship and any damage anyone's ignorance and hatred has spawned. And, lastly, what is wrong with this country today? YOU are what's wrong with this country today. You are just so unimaginably stupid you shouldn't even be allowed to show your face in public.

 

[beagle9]

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

The same place people got alcohol during prohibition? As well as smuggling them in from other countries? Are you honestly this stupid? Where did Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India get their ability to build nuclear weapons, even though the UN had prohibited the sale of such weapons and parts and pieces to build such weapons you complete and utter nincompoop? I mean...really? What, you think people are incapable of making these weapons simply because the government might say they can't? How hard would it really be to make a gun? Most any machine shop has the tools to make a gun. You act as if one needs to be a PhD holding scientist in order to make a gun. What kind of unimaginable sheltered type of life are you living? Or, are you just so naive it's beyond comprehension?

A prisoner can make a zip gun. Idiots with no sense of responsibility can make a gun. But those aren't the weapons tearing up playgrounds and theaters and temples, are they? No, it's the assault weapon that puts the "mass" in "mass shooting'. There is not justification for assault weapons in the hands of anyone other than "well regulated militias". Get the assault weapon and the accessories that feed ammunition into them at a rate no one needs other than soldiers. Such weapons create havoc and are not worth the argument that they are needed by the public.

Now, tell me what tyranny is! Is it taxation or some politics you disagree with? What is tyranny according to you?

Tyranny is England being able to tax the people to death, and with them not being able to challenge it, nor resist it.. It makes me think that these shootings are almost setting up in a very prophetic way the times in which we all are heading into now.

Now who is Hell bent on taxes, taxes, taxes in America now? Are we heading backwards to England now ?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Believe me, the government knows the population is armed. But why should we be armed with assault weapons?

Cuz the government is armed with assault weapons?



Again, you have no idea about "tyranny".



You don't get to TELL me what I "need" and don't "need".



Well now, not necessarily "supposed" to have. As in, a requirement.

And it seems to me that the people who actively fight tyranny as they see it are called terrorists. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols thought they were fighting tyranny when they killed 168 people.

So George Washington, et al, were terrorists in your mind? Further, two men does not a "fight against tyranny" exist. He hoped to spark a revolt in what he perceived as tyranny. It didn't work. Had it worked, you would have had a REAL fight against tyranny. That means there were untold numbers of people in this nation who know true tyranny when they see it and aren't persuaded by some nut's visions of tyranny. In that, you should feel comforted. Had everyone who owned a gun been like you and yours like to perceive them as being, the outcome would have been much different. But, fortunately for you, not everyone who owned a gun WERE like you and yours like to perceive them as being. Like the Founding Fathers, a majority will know when true tyranny has reared its ugly head and then you will know what a fight against tyranny is.

Here's tyranny: the South, old Conservative racists drawing up laws that suppressed voting rights, perpetuated bigotry, forbad inclusion and education among an entire class of American citizens. That's tyranny!

Again, you have no idea about tyranny. However, do you just so happen to remember the Civil War? And, shove your "the South, old Conservative racist" drivel clean up your ass and twirl on it you revisionist steaming piece of stool.

And how was that tyranny finally blunted? By peaceful protest.

LOL@"peaceful protest". Shat up!

By civil disobedience.

Contradictory fool...aren't you?

By showing the stupidity and cruelty fostered by those reactionaries and Southern Conservatives. By the protection of a well regulated militia: the National Guard. Not by armed insurrection. Not by random acts of gun violence. Not by gaggles of idiots with assault weapons targeting those who they perceived as tyrants.

Again, you simply have no idea about tyranny. That you're trying to compare what you perceive as tyranny as practiced by southern states to a potential tyrannical United States federal government? Just give it a rest you complete and utter buffoon. And, again, stuff your "Southern Conservatives" gibberish up your revisionist ass.

The constitution worked. The arms in a Well Regulated Militia made the difference.

Oh really? And, how many instances do you think there were in which a law abiding citizen, exercising his Constitutional rights, who was not in the National Guard or member of the state police, used his Constitutional right to protect black citizens from violence? And, puhlease, don't try and tell me there were no such instances as anyone with even one iota of common sense would know that would be a complete lie. And, in that case, I suspect you would have had no problem with them exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms, even though they weren't in the National Guard or member of the state police.

Once morons who want to take the law into their own hands, idiots who would wreak gunfire on the public to make their irresponsible political points realize that their solution to what they perceive as tyranny are not only irresponsible but out and out criminal in their consequence, then and only then can we finally sweep assault weapons from our lives forever.

Want to cite those instances of those alleged morons who took the law into their own hands wreaking gunfire on the public? Cite them or...shut the fuck up. You're just blathering on with made up bullshit.

Tell me, Rambo, what is tyranny?

Try educating yourself in history...moron. I'm not here to educate a brainless nincompoop like you.

Further, now that I've noticed you've made reference to Rambo several times now throughout this entire thread? This leads me to suspect you form your perceptions with respect to gun owners based on television programs and movies of which you watch. LOL!

Is it Jim Crow?

Again with the confusion between tyranny as practiced by a state or several states and tyranny as practiced by an entire nation's government. LOL! Get a clue you flamboyant intellectual malcontent.

Or is it some political axe you have to grind? And would you fight tyranny with teh safety and responsibility the Civil Rights leaders did?

LOL@"safety and responsibility" of the Civil Rights leaders did. GAWD would you just STFU already you brainless wonder? That you think it was somehow some so-called "peaceful protest" which helped the Civil Rights Movement? Wow, again, I don't think I can say enough times how brainless you are. What happened to help the Civil Rights Movement was the thought of the very thing we've been discussing. The government knew that it was only a matter of time until shit blew up in its face and it would have another revolution on its hands. So, you might just as well shut your freakin' trap while you're ahead. It was the fear of that very thing, which helped spur along the Civil Rights Movement. When shit was being set afire and riots were going on all over the place, the government knew that if they didn't do something, things might not bode well for them. That you think it was a bunch of Kumbaya-singin' love-ins that somehow compelled the government to take action? This only goes to demonstrate, yet again, how shamefully intellectually deficient you really are.

Or would you follow the Tim McVeigh/Terry Nichols mold and blow up children for sport?

Even though someone already posed this question and you've avoided answering it like the plague? Want to enlighten us all again on that assault weapon it was McVeigh and Nichols used?

 

[beagle9]

here's my proposal:

A complete ban on the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession if all assault weapons, high capacity magazines and any and all weapons with automatic firing systems. A buy back program and full amnesty for those who currently hold such weapons and accessories. That buy back would be a voucher for a tax credit on the full market value of such weapons and accessories. This buy back/amnesty period would be for one year. Following that year, anyone in possession of the banned weapons and accessories is subject to a $100,000 fine and one year in federal prison. Anyone committing a crime with any such weapon is subject to a mandatory sentence of no less than three and no more than ten years in federal prison.

An immediate closing of the "gun show loophole" where sales are not accompanied by a back ground check. A federal tax on all ammunition of 75%.

fail!

Why? Or can you frame a solution?

The only solution needed is to deal directly with the case at hand, and venture no further than that which is needed.. Going beyond the case is agenda seeking, and it becomes opportunistic for people like you whom seek to control the good folks of this nation, and of course you do this for your sought after agenda in which you gave proof of in a post a while back.

 

[beagle9]

Cuz the government is armed with assault weapons?



Again, you have no idea about "tyranny".



You don't get to TELL me what I "need" and don't "need".



Well now, not necessarily "supposed" to have. As in, a requirement.



So George Washington, et al, were terrorists in your mind? Further, two men does not a "fight against tyranny" exist. He hoped to spark a revolt in what he perceived as tyranny. It didn't work. Had it worked, you would have had a REAL fight against tyranny. That means there were untold numbers of people in this nation who know true tyranny when they see it and aren't persuaded by some nut's visions of tyranny. In that, you should feel comforted. Had everyone who owned a gun been like you and yours like to perceive them as being, the outcome would have been much different. But, fortunately for you, not everyone who owned a gun WERE like you and yours like to perceive them as being. Like the Founding Fathers, a majority will know when true tyranny has reared its ugly head and then you will know what a fight against tyranny is.

Here's tyranny: the South, old Conservative racists drawing up laws that suppressed voting rights, perpetuated bigotry, forbad inclusion and education among an entire class of American citizens. That's tyranny!

Again, you have no idea about tyranny. However, do you just so happen to remember the Civil War? And, shove your "the South, old Conservative racist" drivel clean up your ass and twirl on it you revisionist steaming piece of stool.



LOL@"peaceful protest". Shat up!



Contradictory fool...aren't you?



Again, you simply have no idea about tyranny. That you're trying to compare what you perceive as tyranny as practiced by southern states to a potential tyrannical United States federal government? Just give it a rest you complete and utter buffoon. And, again, stuff your "Southern Conservatives" gibberish up your revisionist ass.



Oh really? And, how many instances do you think there were in which a law abiding citizen, exercising his Constitutional rights, who was not in the National Guard or member of the state police, used his Constitutional right to protect black citizens from violence? And, puhlease, don't try and tell me there were no such instances as anyone with even one iota of common sense would know that would be a complete lie. And, in that case, I suspect you would have had no problem with them exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms, even though they weren't in the National Guard or member of the state police.



Want to cite those instances of those alleged morons who took the law into their own hands wreaking gunfire on the public? Cite them or...shut the fuck up. You're just blathering on with made up bullshit.



Try educating yourself in history...moron. I'm not here to educate a brainless nincompoop like you.

Further, now that I've noticed you've made reference to Rambo several times now throughout this entire thread? This leads me to suspect you form your perceptions with respect to gun owners based on television programs and movies of which you watch. LOL!



Again with the confusion between tyranny as practiced by a state or several states and tyranny as practiced by an entire nation's government. LOL! Get a clue you flamboyant intellectual malcontent.

Or is it some political axe you have to grind? And would you fight tyranny with teh safety and responsibility the Civil Rights leaders did?

LOL@"safety and responsibility" of the Civil Rights leaders did. GAWD would you just STFU already you brainless wonder? That you think it was somehow some so-called "peaceful protest" which helped the Civil Rights Movement? Wow, again, I don't think I can say enough times how brainless you are. What happened to help the Civil Rights Movement was the thought of the very thing we've been discussing. The government knew that it was only a matter of time until shit blew up in its face and it would have another revolution on its hands. So, you might just as well shut your freakin' trap while you're ahead. It was the fear of that very thing, which helped spur along the Civil Rights Movement. When shit was being set afire and riots were going on all over the place, the government knew that if they didn't do something, things might not bode well for them. That you think it was a bunch of Kumbaya-singin' love-ins that somehow compelled the government to take action? This only goes to demonstrate, yet again, how shamefully intellectually deficient you really are.

Or would you follow the Tim McVeigh/Terry Nichols mold and blow up children for sport?

Even though someone already posed this question and you've avoided answering it like the plague? Want to enlighten us all again on that assault weapon it was McVeigh and Nichols used?

Exactly...

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Tim McVeigh is a sterling example of what goes so tragically wrong when someone who perceives tyranny takes up his cause. Just as a gaggle of idiots who love to play Army can exercise tyranny by insisting there are no deadly consequences to their juvenile hobby.

Stop avoiding the subject. And, answer the question.

Oh! Tyranny! Tyranny is the threat! Not the insane armed with military assault weapons, but tyranny! And you believe the forces arrayed by the federal government can be dissuaded by a bunch of paranoid reactionaries and mouth breathing 'survivalists' with AR-15's slung across their shoulders. Are you the paradigm of sanity we should sacrifice our children to while you combat tyranny?

Your wannabe revolution is your own pipe dream. Something you talk about over cigarettes in the trailer park. Here in real America, we're pretty satisfied, except for all the idiots who think they should have assault weapons, and then wind up shooting up a school or temple or shopping mall.

The real tyranny is the selfishness gun nuts have shown when they are faced with the ghastly consequences of their peculiar lust for high powered weapons. The tyranny such nuts show is their unwillingness to believe that their little hobby can lead to deadly outcomes. So they make us suffer and throw up esoteric smokescreens about "tyranny".

What is tyranny according to you? A tax rate you find oppressive? More tyrannical that someone armed with a rapid fire gun in a school? Is tyranny entitlement programs that give single mothers money to buy food and medicine for their children? Is that more tyrannical than someone stalking a temple with an AR-15?

Suppose you explain what you're so afraid of that you would sacrifice children and innocents just so you can have a weapon of war at your side.

Again, stop avoiding the subject. Answer the question. You DO know what the question was...don't you?

Let's spell it out slowly for you and use some big, bold letters so your handicapped mind can, hopefully, figure it out.

W--h--a--t a--s--s--a--u--l--t w--e--a--p--o--n--s d--i--d T--i--m M--c--V--e--i--g--h u--s--e a--g--a--i--n?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Tim McVeigh is a sterling example of what goes so tragically wrong when someone who perceives tyranny takes up his cause. Just as a gaggle of idiots who love to play Army can exercise tyranny by insisting there are no deadly consequences to their juvenile hobby.

Stop avoiding the subject. And, answer the question.

Oh! Tyranny! Tyranny is the threat! Not the insane armed with military assault weapons, but tyranny! And you believe the forces arrayed by the federal government can be dissuaded by a bunch of paranoid reactionaries and mouth breathing 'survivalists' with AR-15's slung across their shoulders. Are you the paradigm of sanity we should sacrifice our children to while you combat tyranny?

Your wannabe revolution is your own pipe dream. Something you talk about over cigarettes in the trailer park. Here in real America, we're pretty satisfied, except for all the idiots who think they should have assault weapons, and then wind up shooting up a school or temple or shopping mall.

The real tyranny is the selfishness gun nuts have shown when they are faced with the ghastly consequences of their peculiar lust for high powered weapons. The tyranny such nuts show is their unwillingness to believe that their little hobby can lead to deadly outcomes. So they make us suffer and throw up esoteric smokescreens about "tyranny".

What is tyranny according to you? A tax rate you find oppressive? More tyrannical that someone armed with a rapid fire gun in a school? Is tyranny entitlement programs that give single mothers money to buy food and medicine for their children? Is that more tyrannical than someone stalking a temple with an AR-15?

Suppose you explain what you're so afraid of that you would sacrifice children and innocents just so you can have a weapon of war at your side.

You really are a stupid fucker...aren't you?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Here's my proposal:

A complete ban on the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession if all assault weapons, high capacity magazines and any and all weapons with automatic firing systems. A buy back program and full amnesty for those who currently hold such weapons and accessories. That buy back would be a voucher for a tax credit on the full market value of such weapons and accessories. This buy back/amnesty period would be for one year. Following that year, anyone in possession of the banned weapons and accessories is subject to a $100,000 fine and one year in federal prison. Anyone committing a crime with any such weapon is subject to a mandatory sentence of no less than three and no more than ten years in federal prison.

An immediate closing of the "gun show loophole" where sales are not accompanied by a back ground check. A federal tax on all ammunition of 75%.

If this analogy only pertained to the criminals ok, but why does it pertain to the good citizens as well ?

If I could and currently do own these weapons, and I was A- ok as far as my mental goes, then how about levying that fine against anyone who would steal my weapons and are caught with them later ?

I love shooting weapons and owning them, and I have always owned weapons of all sorts in my life, just as many others I know do also, but you want to use these tragedies to disarm me and my friends ?

Why?

Are you afraid of people like me and my friends, or are you afraid of the criminals more?

We might be the next to save your life from an attacker with any kind of a weapon, but if you have your way, we would show up with a butter knife if saw you being killed.

The guns. We're all tired of suffering from the fire power of assault weapons.

I'm tired of you and your collective...punk!

no one is afraid of you, until your gun kills someone.

LOL! What a stupid comment.

And you aren't going to be the sheriff and ride to the rescue with your '"cool" guns. Stop this delusion.

Well, we all certainly know you're not going to be the sheriff and ride to the rescue with your "cool" peace sign.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

The same place people got alcohol during prohibition? As well as smuggling them in from other countries? Are you honestly this stupid? Where did Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India get their ability to build nuclear weapons, even though the UN had prohibited the sale of such weapons and parts and pieces to build such weapons you complete and utter nincompoop? I mean...really? What, you think people are incapable of making these weapons simply because the government might say they can't? How hard would it really be to make a gun? Most any machine shop has the tools to make a gun. You act as if one needs to be a PhD holding scientist in order to make a gun. What kind of unimaginable sheltered type of life are you living? Or, are you just so naive it's beyond comprehension?

A prisoner can make a zip gun. Idiots with no sense of responsibility can make a gun. But those aren't the weapons tearing up playgrounds and theaters and temples, are they? No, it's the assault weapon that puts the "mass" in "mass shooting'.

Again, you moron, you act as if one needs to be a PhD holding scientist in order to make a gun. And, if you think anyone who isn't a PhD holding scientist isn't capable of making anything more than a zip gun? Get your head out of your ass.

There is not justification for assault weapons in the hands of anyone other than "well regulated militias".

Sure there is.

Get the assault weapon and the accessories that feed ammunition into them at a rate no one needs other than soldiers.

Again, you don't get to TELL me what I "need" and don't "need". Repeating your blithering gibberish over and over like a broken record isn't going to help you.

Such weapons create havoc and are not worth the argument that they are needed by the public.

No, those who misuse them create havoc. Such weapons themselves, are inanimate objects which do nothing without a user operating it. Anything can create havoc, if it's misused and abused.

Now

, tell me what tyranny is! Is it taxation or some politics you disagree with? What is tyranny according to you?

Tyranny according to me is tyranny according to most everyone else. What, you don't know the definition of tyranny? In fact, what you're proposing is an example itself. Keep your hands off my Constitutional rights...Red Coat.