The Real Effort Over Gun Control

[CrotchetyGeezer]

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:

So you're saying the Molotov cocktails used to start the fires, the rocks thrown through windows and at police, the fists that were thrown, etc., etc., etc., wasn't armed conflict? Are you actually, yet again, going to demonstrate how big of a complete idiot you are?

 

[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.

Back to la-la-land.

What is the virtue of an assault weapon?

Ask the government what the virtue is.

Why is it so important that private citizens have them?

Because the government has them, criminals have them and potential foreign invaders have them.

Does the virtue of an asault weapon out weigh the safety of our innocents?

No, the virtue of the Constitutional rights afforded to me and mine outweighs your perceived safety of our innocents, as it jeopardizes the innocents of me and mine if we forfeit those Constitutional rights. And, to use a quote the left always find joy in citing when they feel it's so convenient to do so,

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Is having an assault weapon worth the havoc they produce?

Assault weapons don't produce havoc.

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.

I want to know why you are satisfied with putting innocents' lives in jeopardy because you're having an emotional knee-jerk fit.

The cost of these weapons is measured in the blood of children.

There's all sorts of things measured in the blood of children. Shall we ban them too?

Are they worth it? What is the virtue of an assault weapon/

It protects us from the assault weapons of criminals, potential repressive governments and potential foreign invaders.

Lastly, what I find probably ironic? What's your views on abortion?

 

[beagle9]

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.

You have a messed up idea about America then, because it is not for you to decide what I need or should have in my life, especially that is being based upon what is going on somewhere else in America, and that is not related to me and my rights as an American. So this is all agenda seeking for a larger picture for people like you eh?

 

[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%.

fail!

Why?

Because it's unconstitutional...that's why, chump.

Or can you frame a solution?

There is no 100% foolproof solution. Just like there's no 100% foolproof solution for wars, rapes, child molestation, etc., etc., etc. It is what it is. If we can turn back the clock approximately 100 years, then there's your solution right there, as there was barely any such thing as school shootings 100 years ago and there certainly was no such thing as school shootings involving AR-15s. But, turning back the clock 100 years ain't gonna' happen. Just like, your taking away Americans' Constitutional rights ain't gonna' happen. However, maybe, using your rationale, we should ban mentally challenged people...eh?

Some things we might do which might be helpful...though? Start stressing the fact that keeping guns in the near vicinity of people with mental issues might not be such a good idea. Start perhaps committing people with more serious mental issues. Also, enough with the inundation of drugs for those suffering mental issues. And, start being more aware of those side effects users might be experiencing, even if they have to embarrass the user in order to be aware of that information. Some users might be afraid to inform mental health workers of side effects they're experiencing due to embarrassing reasons. And, mental health workers need to be clear that the users' embarrassments are irrelevant in the face of what negative consequences might arise out of unknown side effects the user might be experiencing. We already know why the Columbine shooters did what they did. So, it's time to start teaching kids to buck up and grow some thick skin, and stop being such pussies. Not, all this horseshit bullying campaign that's going on currently. All that does is make them even bigger pussies. And then, in many instances, a good old-fashioned ass whooping for misbehaving brats might be appropriate. We didn't have as many instances of stuff like this when pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass.

 

[YoungRepublican]

fail!

Why?

Because it's unconstitutional...that's why, chump.

Or can you frame a solution?

There is no 100% foolproof solution. Just like there's no 100% foolproof solution for wars, rapes, child molestation, etc., etc., etc. It is what it is. If we can turn back the clock approximately 100 years, then there's your solution right there, as there was barely any such thing as school shootings 100 years ago and there certainly was no such thing as school shootings involving AR-15s. But, turning back the clock 100 years ain't gonna' happen. Just like, your taking away Americans' Constitutional rights ain't gonna' happen. However, maybe, using your rationale, we should ban mentally challenged people...eh?

Some things we might do which might be helpful...though? Start stressing the fact that keeping guns in the near vicinity of people with mental issues might not be such a good idea. Start perhaps committing people with more serious mental issues. Also, enough with the inundation of drugs for those suffering mental issues. And, start being more aware of those side effects users might be experiencing, even if they have to embarrass the user in order to be aware of that information. Some users might be afraid to inform mental health workers of side effects they're experiencing due to embarrassing reasons. And, mental health workers need to be clear that the users' embarrassments are irrelevant in the face of what negative consequences might arise out of unknown side effects the user might be experiencing. We already know why the Columbine shooters did what they did. So, it's time to start teaching kids to buck up and grow some thick skin, and stop being such pussies. Not, all this horseshit bullying campaign that's going on currently. All that does is make them even bigger pussies. And then, in many instances, a good old-fashioned ass whooping for misbehaving brats might be appropriate. We didn't have as many instances of stuff like this when pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass.

No, we didnt have this many instances when "pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass" but we created a culture of abusive husbands and fathers. My Dad used to hit us, till I got old enough to hit him back, because I know the difference between what is right and wrong.. If you honestly think that domestic violence is answer to a problem then youre a fucking moron.. It's funny to me that all of these people with their well "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them" mentality are usually from the south or midwest, areas sticken by poverty, domestic abuse and crimes all created by the culture that I can see so blatantly written across all of these boards.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Why?

Because it's unconstitutional...that's why, chump.

Or can you frame a solution?

There is no 100% foolproof solution. Just like there's no 100% foolproof solution for wars, rapes, child molestation, etc., etc., etc. It is what it is. If we can turn back the clock approximately 100 years, then there's your solution right there, as there was barely any such thing as school shootings 100 years ago and there certainly was no such thing as school shootings involving AR-15s. But, turning back the clock 100 years ain't gonna' happen. Just like, your taking away Americans' Constitutional rights ain't gonna' happen. However, maybe, using your rationale, we should ban mentally challenged people...eh?

Some things we might do which might be helpful...though? Start stressing the fact that keeping guns in the near vicinity of people with mental issues might not be such a good idea. Start perhaps committing people with more serious mental issues. Also, enough with the inundation of drugs for those suffering mental issues. And, start being more aware of those side effects users might be experiencing, even if they have to embarrass the user in order to be aware of that information. Some users might be afraid to inform mental health workers of side effects they're experiencing due to embarrassing reasons. And, mental health workers need to be clear that the users' embarrassments are irrelevant in the face of what negative consequences might arise out of unknown side effects the user might be experiencing. We already know why the Columbine shooters did what they did. So, it's time to start teaching kids to buck up and grow some thick skin, and stop being such pussies. Not, all this horseshit bullying campaign that's going on currently. All that does is make them even bigger pussies. And then, in many instances, a good old-fashioned ass whooping for misbehaving brats might be appropriate. We didn't have as many instances of stuff like this when pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass.

No, we didnt have this many instances when "pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass" but we created a culture of abusive husbands and fathers. My Dad used to hit us, till I got old enough to hit him back, because I know the difference between what is right and wrong..

No one created a culture of squat. That was the culture that existed and it was worse prior to that. And, abusive husbands and fathers exist to this very day, regardless of efforts to diminish instances of physical discipline. And, no where have I said I advocate beating the holy hell out of someone. And, as to your claims your dad hit you until you hit him back, I don't know enough details to make comment on it. However, my dad used to make me get the willow off the tree to beat my own ass with and I didn't dare hit him, as I knew that would be the last person I ever hit. And, at the time I thought it was abuse, wrong...blah, blah, blah. However, as I've grown older, I realize that had it not been for that, as well as my mother slapping me upside my head and giving me week's long lectures, I wouldn't be the way I am today. And, don't even pretend to think you can somehow know me through short exchanges on a message board.

If you honestly think that domestic violence is answer to a problem then youre a fucking moron..

Define "domestic violence". And, if you think banning guns is the answer to the problem, then you're an even bigger fucking moron.

It's funny to me that all of these people with their well "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them" mentality are usually from the south or midwest, areas sticken by poverty, domestic abuse and crimes all created by the culture that I can see so blatantly written across all of these boards.

I'm from neither the south nor midwest...dope. And, as to the rest of your gibberish, although my family experienced poverty and I did watch my mom's second husband (not my dad) beat the crap out of her, I never experienced insomuch with regards to crime in any significant level. And, who said anything about "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them"? I never said "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them". I said kids who misbehave should have their asses paddled and, people should learn to buck up, grow a thick skin and stop being such pussies. I never implied kids needed beat in order to buck up, grow a thick skin and stop being such pussies. That isn't something that can be beat into someone. That's something one can teach their kids. Learning the words "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" is a very valuable asset.

 

[Politico]

umm.. if everyone were disarmed... then what would there be to be helpless against?

1. Gun toting criminals
2. The Government

ummm.... if you disarmed "everyone" -- how are criminals armed? Duh...

Duh criminals don't getr disarmed. Like I said you know the sanwer to the question. it just doesn't fit your agenda.

If there is an answer, spit it out already. Because my "agenda" is to ferret out the reasoning --or lack thereof.

Bullshit. You don't care about anythig but banning guns and trolling anyone who supports keeping them. Suck on that bandwidth.

 

[jtpr312]

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?
You're pretty stupid aren't you? Let's tale a body count and compare citizens killed by insane people with assault rifles and tyrannical governments. I'll do the tyrannical goivernments, you do the insane people with assault rifles. Heck, I'll be a sport and allow you to not only count insane people with "assault rifles", but insane people with ANY type of firearm. I'll go one further, you can count all victims of insane shooters since the invention of the gun, and I'll just go from the middle of the last century.
Mao- 50,000,000-70,000,000
Hitler- 8,000,000-12,000,000
Stalin-50,000,000+
Tojo-5,000,000
Pol Pot-6,000,000
Kim il-sung-6,000,000
Menghistu-1,500,000
Gowon-1,000,000
Jean Kambanda-800,000
Sadam-6,000,000
That's almost 150,000,000, and I got a few million more, but I'll stop here till you catch up.
As for this ridiculous statement of your, "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", here's some FYI for you seeing that you're obviously ingorant of the facts. I'll just give you one example of a few paranoid reactionaries with assault rifles slung over their chest standing against governments. The Mujahideen, a small group of reactionaries with assault rifles slung over their backs, have beaten the two greatest superpowers of this century and last century. They threw the Russians out of their land, and now they're about to throw the Americans out of their land. There are many more examples just in current history, Egypt and Libya to name but two. Your ingorance is only matched by your obvious desire to share that ignorance with the board.

Your wannabe revolution is your own pipe dream. Something you talk about over cigarettes in the trailer park. Yeah, that's what King George was saying back in England. 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. Over 80,000,000 legal firearm owners in this nation with over 300,000,00 firearms. Exactly how many of us are out shooting up schools, temples or shopping malls? You're brain dead.

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". Now you've proven you don't even know the defintion of tyranny. Try looking the word up and get back to us.

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? If you knew the answer to the first question here, What is tyranny?, you wouldn't be rambling on with this nonsense about entitlement programs, rapid fire guns and temple shootings.


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. Suppose you explain to US how punishing sane law abiding citizens for the actions of the insane and the criminal minded will make kids any safer? Explain to us how law abiding gun owners being disarmed with take the guns away from the hundreds of thousands of criminally minded gang bangers and dope dealers armed with these types of weapons. Explain to us how smart it is to disarm the honest citizen while the govt is giving assault weapons to the drug cartels?

.

 

[jtpr312]

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? And you seem to fear attack by wild boar as a more plausible threat than massive massacres in theaters, schools, temples and our streets. Do you think that's either reasonable or responsible?

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

Man you're a dumbass ain't you? How about from the Federal govt that wants to disarm it's own citizens while sending arms to the drug cartels down in mexico. These same cartles that ship hundreds of thousands of tons of drugs into this nation. You think they'll have any problems shipping tons of rifles into this nation? You think the govt will be any more successful in stopping them from bringing guns to the criminals in this nation than they were in stopping them from bringing drugs into this nation?

 

[PredFan]

umm.. if everyone were disarmed... then what would there be to be helpless against?

1. Gun toting criminals
2. The Government

ummm.... if you disarmed "everyone" -- how are criminals armed? Duh...


Words are not a toy to play with. They can misfire and shoot you back. Especially when you don't know how to handle them.

You're too ignorant to have a discussion with.

 

[PredFan]

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.

If you want to defend against some perceived tyranny, join the National Guard or the State Police. These folks are the real defenders against tyranny. They have proven it. It was National Guardsmen who protected Civil Rights marchers against the tyranny of idiot racists.

Do you see tyranny today? If so, where? because I believe that most of sane America is pretty much satisfied, except for the tyranny of the extremist who holds the view that he has some warped "right" to hold aa assault rifle while other nuts tear up schools, theaters, temples and our streets with, guess what, ASSAULT RIFLES!

These weapons have NO PLACE in our society. They need to be banned forever. 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'.

You know, how does one gain this level of stupidity I wonder?

Do you even know what tyranny means?

Tyranny is the oppression of people. Just like Southern racist idiots oppressed African American citizens. How was that tyranny blunted? By peaceful protest under the protection of a well regulated militia.

Tyranny means the oppression of people. Like the tyranny displayed by gun nuts who believe that weapons of warfare are to be used by private citizens. Those gun nuts show their disdain and tyranny by insisting that even though their assault weapons take a massive toll of dead, it is their "right" to hold them. That's the real tyranny, not some ill conceived notion of political tyranny held among reactionaries and militarized morons.

The tyranny of the gun nut can be measured by the number of mass shootings and street violence in America today. Ask yourself, should people have weapons designed for soldiers even though the consequences of those weapons is the slaughter of innocent citizens? What is tyranny if not the insistence by a few non-thinkers that they should hold weapons capable of killing so many people so quickly?

Ok so you do know, but you just twist the meaning to suit your wingnut beliefs. Color me no longer caring.

 

[PredFan]

Believe me, the government knows the population is armed. But why should we be armed with assault weapons? Such weapons wreak more terror and destruction than any benefit by way of defense against tyranny. The general population has no more need of assault weapons than they need bazookas. Are we supposed to have a bazooka in the home to defend against some perceived tyranny?

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.

What assault weapons did Tim McVeigh use again?

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.

But, what assault weapons did he use?

 

[PredFan]

We do not need assault rifles for citizens.
You cannot hunt with them.

That would be a lie. I hunt wild hogs with an AR15 platform. I also use an AR15 for short range varmint hunting. Perfect weapons for the job.

It is also a massive logic fail. Tell me, why would you want to give an advantage to criminals who don't care about your well-intended regulations by banning "assault rifles" for law abiding citizens? You're not one of these lunatics that actually thinks crazies and criminals will obey your laws, are you?

Yes, he is.

 

[PredFan]

What on earth can possibly justify assault weapons?

The fact criminals have them? Unless you'd PREFER to be at a disadvantage against armed criminals, which would be rather odd choice I think.

More justification? Okay. I hunt with AR15 rifles. Perfect for hogs and varmints.

Even more justification? Sure. It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

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

And just how does that happen genius? The criminals obey the laws?

Once this scourge of weaponry has been blotted out, neither criminal nor redneck will be able to wield them again.

I don't know how things work on your planet, but on this planet the military will always have them and that means opposing militaries will also have them and some countries are lax in enforcing their existing laws and other countries who have militaries and arms manufacturers are corrupt and will sell them to anyone no matter the law. When a criminal or a criminal organization wants a high-capacity assault weapon, they will have no trouble getting one.

And were there no wold boar killed before the invention of the assault rifle?

Yes they were, but rarely and at great peril to the hunters.

And you have no "right" to one either. 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.

And then there's this hackneyed and much debunked argument.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................

 

[PredFan]

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? And you seem to fear attack by wild boar as a more plausible threat than massive massacres in theaters, schools, temples and our streets. Do you think that's either reasonable or responsible?

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

You just refuse to think things through because if you did, it would destroy your argument.

 

[PredFan]

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%.

Thereby ensuring the only criminals will have such firearms and accessories while no law abiding citizen can.

Brilliant...

Pass.

The only solution I've seen from the pro gun violence side is more guns! No wonder the gun manufacturers support the NRA! they advocate the solution as more guns. When someone who loves to play Army comes up with a reasonable solution, not just ladle more guns on the streets, but clear them out, I'll listen. Otherwise you advocate putting out fires with gasoline and claiming weapons of war are somehow your right to have. Irresponsible and totally ridiculous.

No one is pro gun violence fuckstick.

That's one of the weaker strawman arguments I've seen lately.

 

[PredFan]

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 keep dodging the question. We've all heard your looney rantings, now try answering the question of what assault weapons did McVeigh use.

 

[PredFan]

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:

Where's the assault weapons dipshit, or are those semi-automatic nightsticks and assault Billy Clubs. You're all drama, no substance.

 

[PredFan]

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/

How many times do we have to answer this question?

Hunting and protection.

 

[beagle9]

Why?

Because it's unconstitutional...that's why, chump.

Or can you frame a solution?

There is no 100% foolproof solution. Just like there's no 100% foolproof solution for wars, rapes, child molestation, etc., etc., etc. It is what it is. If we can turn back the clock approximately 100 years, then there's your solution right there, as there was barely any such thing as school shootings 100 years ago and there certainly was no such thing as school shootings involving AR-15s. But, turning back the clock 100 years ain't gonna' happen. Just like, your taking away Americans' Constitutional rights ain't gonna' happen. However, maybe, using your rationale, we should ban mentally challenged people...eh?

Some things we might do which might be helpful...though? Start stressing the fact that keeping guns in the near vicinity of people with mental issues might not be such a good idea. Start perhaps committing people with more serious mental issues. Also, enough with the inundation of drugs for those suffering mental issues. And, start being more aware of those side effects users might be experiencing, even if they have to embarrass the user in order to be aware of that information. Some users might be afraid to inform mental health workers of side effects they're experiencing due to embarrassing reasons. And, mental health workers need to be clear that the users' embarrassments are irrelevant in the face of what negative consequences might arise out of unknown side effects the user might be experiencing. We already know why the Columbine shooters did what they did. So, it's time to start teaching kids to buck up and grow some thick skin, and stop being such pussies. Not, all this horseshit bullying campaign that's going on currently. All that does is make them even bigger pussies. And then, in many instances, a good old-fashioned ass whooping for misbehaving brats might be appropriate. We didn't have as many instances of stuff like this when pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass.

No, we didnt have this many instances when "pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass" but we created a culture of abusive husbands and fathers. My Dad used to hit us, till I got old enough to hit him back, because I know the difference between what is right and wrong.. If you honestly think that domestic violence is answer to a problem then youre a fucking moron.. It's funny to me that all of these people with their well "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them" mentality are usually from the south or midwest, areas sticken by poverty, domestic abuse and crimes all created by the culture that I can see so blatantly written across all of these boards.

Oh so your mentally messed up from being beaten by an abusive father, and so you think you can speak from that position to tell me what rights I get to have in America now ? My question is how many are actually out there like you, and should we take heed that you all are getting the power to control this nation from a standpoint of bias due to your own personal experience's in life ?