CDZ Two options...the European model of self defense, and the American model of Self defensse.

[GLASNOST]

Dogs are too dim-witted to understand that it's their owner who's responsible for the dog-ring, so ....... they fight. Now if dogs were intelligent (and had Democratic rights on their side) they'd band together and chop their owners up and live in peace amongst themselves: Doberman, Shepards, Spaniels, Poodles, Chihuahuas, Dalmatians, Pekingese, Ridgebacks, black, white, brown, they might even make friends with the cats.

I have had dogs and cats at the same time. They got along just fine.

Have you thrown them in the ring? No, you haven't.

 

[2aguy]

That is absurd, and you know it. Of course a criminal who can't pass a background check will purchase from a seller who doesn't require a background check in the first place

Wrong....normal people aren't selling to criminals...that isn't how the criminals get their guns....they go to people they know are willing to become straw buyers....they more often than not use grandmothers, mothers, sisters and baby mommas to get the guns.......they often threaten violence to these women if they refuse....

 

[Open Bolt]

So three of your links didn't even try mention your claim,

That is incorrect. All three links clearly show law abiding people being forced to give up guns that they owned.

and your 4th link was the same constitutional gun regulation we have always had.

That is incorrect. There is nothing even remotely Constitutional about progressives deliberately violating people's civil liberties for fun.

Quit whining you big baby.

First, that isn't very nice or polite.

Second, it is untrue. All I was doing was providing cites because you asked for examples of progressives confiscating people's guns.

 

[Blues Man]

We are not the UK or Australia.
New York has long had state gun licensing and registration laws. Breaking those laws could result in loss of your right to own guns, just like breaking many other laws can remove your right to own guns.
Your link to some California letter has a pay wall, but no guns were confiscated in California as a result of any letter in 1991.

And those NY laws are the subject of a SCOTUS case as we speak.

 

[Blues Man]

That is absurd, and you know it. Of course a criminal who can't pass a background check will purchase from a seller who doesn't require a background check in the first place

New Report on Where Criminals Get Their Guns | National Review

It would be very difficult to regulate most of these transactions.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[BULLDOG]

That is incorrect. All three links clearly show law abiding people being forced to give up guns that they owned.



That is incorrect. There is nothing even remotely Constitutional about progressives deliberately violating people's civil liberties for fun.



First, that isn't very nice or polite.

Second, it is untrue. All I was doing was providing cites because you asked for examples of progressives confiscating people's guns.

Your diversion from reality is noted.

 

[Open Bolt]

Your diversion from reality is noted.

No such diversion from reality.

I was asked to provide cites showing progressives taking guns from law abiding citizens.

I provided cites showing progressives taking guns from law abiding citizens.

So, getting back on topic. No to any sort of centralized gun registration.

We know that progressives intend to use registration as a weapon against law abiding gun owners.

 

[BULLDOG]

No such diversion from reality.

I was asked to provide cites showing progressives taking guns from law abiding citizens.

I provided cites showing progressives taking guns from law abiding citizens.

So, getting back on topic. No to any sort of centralized gun registration.

We know that progressives intend to use registration as a weapon against law abiding gun owners.

I haven't said anything in support of gun registration. I have often said we have dealer background checks with no federal registration. There is no reason we can't have universal background checks with no federal registration.

 

[2aguy]

I haven't said anything in support of gun registration. I have often said we have dealer background checks with no federal registration. There is no reason we can't have universal background checks with no federal registration.

And that is wrong....you can't have universal background checks without gun registration, and you know this. You would need gun registration to know who owns the gun, and if the background check was done between the parties...otherwise, they could sell the gun and simply say the other party always owned it...but thanks for playing.

 

[BULLDOG]

And that is wrong....you can't have universal background checks without gun registration, and you know this. You would need gun registration to know who owns the gun, and if the background check was done between the parties...otherwise, they could sell the gun and simply say the other party always owned it...but thanks for playing.

So you're saying background checks wouldn't be 100% perfect. Nothing we do is 100% perfect, dumb ass.

 

[2aguy]

So you're saying background checks wouldn't be 100% perfect. Nothing we do is 100% perfect, dumb ass.

So you're saying background checks wouldn't be 100% perfect. Nothing we do is 100% perfect, dumb ass.

This is the CDZ.......no name calling...

It isn't about being effective, you don't care about that......you want gun registration....that is why you are using the fake issue of normal people selling their guns and trying to lie about it, saying that this is how criminals get their guns...when you have been shown that it is straw buyers...people who can pass any background check, who use that ability to buy guns, knowingly, for criminals......

You want universal background checks as a way to demand gun registration.....that is the only reason you want universal background checks.

 

[LibertyKid]

We kill lots of people. They don't kill nearly as many. We should do what they are doing.
View attachment 496928

Per CDC, 40K are killed due to gun related deaths in 2019. Doesn't matter who, what, when or why, the death by gun is counted.

In the same year, over 600,000 will die due to tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and or heart disease. The point is a death is a death and if we want to say that the government should "Do something" then the same should be applied to causes that are just as preventable and are a greater cause of death than guns. Yes, a cheeseburger eaten too many times won't kill someone else, but why aren't we doing more to stop heart disease? Over 10K are killed by drunk drivers, does that number have to hit 15k, 20k, before we start crying to have booze outlawed once again?

My point, "gun control' is a political narrative that is being used to divide us politically and drive votes to one camp or the other.
Is someone dying by a gun more tragic than a family being killed by a drunk driver? Is a family losing a loved one due to cancer related to tobacco not as important as a gun death?

Trying to apply some perspective here.

 

[BULLDOG]

Per CDC, 40K are killed due to gun related deaths in 2019. Doesn't matter who, what, when or why, the death by gun is counted.

In the same year, over 600,000 will die due to tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and or heart disease. The point is a death is a death and if we want to say that the government should "Do something" then the same should be applied to causes that are just as preventable and are a greater cause of death than guns. Yes, a cheeseburger eaten too many times won't kill someone else, but why aren't we doing more to stop heart disease? Over 10K are killed by drunk drivers, does that number have to hit 15k, 20k, before we start crying to have booze outlawed once again?

My point, "gun control' is a political narrative that is being used to divide us politically and drive votes to one camp or the other.
Is someone dying by a gun more tragic than a family being killed by a drunk driver? Is a family losing a loved one due to cancer related to tobacco not as important as a gun death?

Trying to apply some perspective here.

My point is that we kill lots more with guns than they do. We should do what they are doing.

 

[Open Bolt]

My point is that we kill lots more with guns than they do.

It doesn't matter what method a murder victim is killed with. The victim is just as dead no matter what method is used to kill them.

We should do what they are doing.

What they did in Europe is abolish freedom. We should never do that.

 

[BULLDOG]

It doesn't matter what method a murder victim is killed with. The victim is just as dead no matter what method is used to kill them.



What they did in Europe is abolish freedom. We should never do that.

So there is no freedom in Europe? You know that's nuts, right?

 

[Open Bolt]

So there is no freedom in Europe?

Correct. Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Note that a European serf having guns "because he has a need and his lord has given him permission to do so" is not the same thing as having the right to have guns.

Free people don't ask for permission or justify themselves to anyone. If they want guns, they go buy guns, and it doesn't matter if anyone doesn't like it.

You know that's nuts, right?

It's true. America is the last free nation in the world.

 

[Blues Man]

Per CDC, 40K are killed due to gun related deaths in 2019. Doesn't matter who, what, when or why, the death by gun is counted.

In the same year, over 600,000 will die due to tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and or heart disease. The point is a death is a death and if we want to say that the government should "Do something" then the same should be applied to causes that are just as preventable and are a greater cause of death than guns. Yes, a cheeseburger eaten too many times won't kill someone else, but why aren't we doing more to stop heart disease? Over 10K are killed by drunk drivers, does that number have to hit 15k, 20k, before we start crying to have booze outlawed once again?

My point, "gun control' is a political narrative that is being used to divide us politically and drive votes to one camp or the other.
Is someone dying by a gun more tragic than a family being killed by a drunk driver? Is a family losing a loved one due to cancer related to tobacco not as important as a gun death?

Trying to apply some perspective here.

Most "gun deaths" are suicide and people have the absolute right to decide whether they live or die

 

[Blues Man]

So there is no freedom in Europe? You know that's nuts, right?

How many European countries can you get thrown in jail for saying "the wrong thing"

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

No, the U.S. does not need European-style hate speech laws

When tyrants seek to control a people, they make sure none can vocalize their opposition. In Europe, freedom of expression is eroding before our eyes.

www.usatoday.com

In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Often Used to Suppress and Punish Left-Wing Viewpoints

If hate speech laws existed in the U.S., their prime targets would be pro-Palestinian groups, Muslims, atheists, Black Lives Matter activists, and antifa.

theintercept.com

Europe’s War on Free Speech

Any American who ever questions whether the First Amendment is vital to protect free speech should just cast a glance across the Atlantic. Europeans share the same values we do—indeed, our concept of rights derives from European philosophers—and yet they often adopt misguided laws that...

www.heritage.org

 

[LibertyKid]

Most "gun deaths" are suicide and people have the absolute right to decide whether they live or die

Okay... The narrative that we see by politicians and MSM is NOT that statistic. Which is true and thanks for sharing.
The narrative we are presented is that mass shootings is a mass problem in our country. That is not the case.

 

[Blues Man]

Okay... The narrative that we see by politicians and MSM is NOT that statistic. Which is true and thanks for sharing.
The narrative we are presented is that mass shootings is a mass problem in our country. That is not the case.

Of course it isn't.

So called mass shootings account for 1% or less of all murders.