Unfortunately my friends, gun control is coming.

[Jarlaxle]

I don't care about the rest of the world and I never did. I don't live in the rest of the world and I don't want to.

I don't want anyone telling me I can't own a weapon so as to protect my home and my wife. That is the only reason I own firearms. The government is not going to stop anyone or any several people who want to break into my home or my business are they?

The answer is no. All the cops will do is show up after I or my wife are robbed, beat up and possibly killed. I don't care how remote the possibility is the possibility exists. Just 2 towns over from me a woman was the victim of a home invasion I suppose she thought it was not possible but it was.

If you don't want a weapon then don't buy one but because you are afraid of guns is not a good enough justification for you to take mine.

If you think you have a just cause then I suggest you mobilize your sheep and get the second amendment repealed.

That gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill someone in you family than a bad guy.

And I find it amusing that after advocating an economic system that leaves so many in poverty in the richest country in the world, your biggest fear in life is that one of those poor people might try to take your shit.

If you don't want a weapon then don't buy one but because you are afraid of guns is not a good enough justification for you to take mine.

Dipshit, I was in the Army for 11 years, and have handled more guns than you ever have.

So...section 8, then?

I'm not afraid of guns.

Horseshit. Your absolute terror comes through crystal clear with every post!

I'm afraid of crazy people with guns. And frankly, if you guys can't keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people (you largely don't even seem intent on trying) then we should probably just take everyone's guns and call it good.

Because you don't really need them.

You are terrified of guns, whether or not you will admit it. You are also a fascist, but that's nothing new.

 

[francoHFW]

There WILL be background checks on ALL sales.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Just because you were in the army doesn't mean you're not a pussy. And I don't put guns in anyone's hands I have mine and don't let anyone else use them.

If you're not a crazy person or a criminal, you should have no problem with any of the common sense gun control laws Obama has proposed.

Now, yeah, the day he suggests banning Corporatists Douchebags from owning guns, you might have a valid concern.

But here's the real philosophical problem you guys have.

Once you admit, "Yeah, the government has a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of Joker Holmes", you've admitted gun ownership is a privilage, not a "right".

 

[JoeB131]

[

So...section 8, then?

Nope, after the Gulf War, I realized I didn't want to die in the middle of a fucking desert so the Zionists could play "God Loves me the Very Bestest!"

The Zionist Marching song. "Onward Christian Soldiers"...

I'm not afraid of guns.

Horseshit. Your absolute terror comes through crystal clear with every post!

Naw, the gun itself is harmless. It's the crazy people with guns that conern me. The best argument for gun control is some of the batshit, crazy, racist evil things said by gun nuts on this very board. There's no end to the people they'd like to shoot if they thought they could get away with it... and it will get worse when they figure out they won't be winning any more elecions.

[

I'm afraid of crazy people with guns. And frankly, if you guys can't keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people (you largely don't even seem intent on trying) then we should probably just take everyone's guns and call it good.

Because you don't really need them.

You are terrified of guns, whether or not you will admit it. You are also a fascist, but that's nothing new.

I think that the benefits of gun owners (there really aren't any) are far outweighed by the costs (9148 murders and 13,000 suicides a year, law enforcement costs vastly more than what it costs in other industrialized countries.)

Here's an idea. Since guns make law enforcement so fucking expensive, let's raise the taxes on guns and ammo to pay for it. Kind of like they did with tobacco.

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://www.csctalkradio.com/tracks/010413.mp3

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

Just because you were in the army doesn't mean you're not a pussy. And I don't put guns in anyone's hands I have mine and don't let anyone else use them.

If you're not a crazy person or a criminal, you should have no problem with any of the common sense gun control laws Obama has proposed.

Now, yeah, the day he suggests banning Corporatists Douchebags from owning guns, you might have a valid concern.

But here's the real philosophical problem you guys have.

Once you admit, "Yeah, the government has a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of Joker Holmes", you've admitted gun ownership is a privilage, not a "right".

Just who are "you guys"?

I don't think banning a semiautomatic rifle because it looks scary is common sense. I've told you over and over that banning a 30 round magazine is stupid because anyone can fire just as many rounds in almost the same amount of time with 3 10 round magazines.

It's you who won't come right out and say that you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles you would just rather do it incrementally by first banning the scary looking ones then by saying that all semiautomatics are just like the banned weapon.

It's the old "how do you boil a frog" scenario.

How do you boil a frog? You put him in warm water then slowly turn up the heat.

And BTW owning a weapon is a right it says so in the Constitution. If you don't like it then get the second amendment repealed.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Just who are "you guys"?

I don't think banning a semiautomatic rifle because it looks scary is common sense. I've told you over and over that banning a 30 round magazine is stupid because anyone can fire just as many rounds in almost the same amount of time with 3 10 round magazines.

It's you who won't come right out and say that you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles you would just rather do it incrementally by first banning the scary looking ones then by saying that all semiautomatics are just like the banned weapon.

It's the old "how do you boil a frog" scenario.

How do you boil a frog? You put him in warm water then slowly turn up the heat.

And BTW owning a weapon is a right it says so in the Constitution. If you don't like it then get the second amendment repealed.

The boiling frog thing is a falacy. A frog will jump out of the pot if the water becomes uncomfortable for it. On the other hand, if you drop a frog into a pot that is already boiling, the shock will probably kill it...

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not Gun Ownership. So that bullshit won't fly. Otherwise, I want to have my very own 88MM Howitzer and 50 Cal Machine gun. Once you say that I can't have those, you've admitted the government can "regulate" what I can and can't have. So that argument fails.

Not that this is important to me. I don't base decisions on "What did a bunch of dead Slave Rapists think 200 years ago?" I live in 2013, and letting Joker Holmes have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip is just plain stupid.

It isn't about how "Scary" they look. It's about the capabilities they have, which are far beyond what a homeowner needs.

Let's be perfectly honest WHY the gun makers want to sell these weapons. Not because they serve any practical use for civilians, but because they are profitable. They aer already geared up to mass produce them for governments, and you just market them to Nancy Lanza and tell her the Zombie Apocolypse is coming, and there you go.

 

[P F Tinmore]

[

Just who are "you guys"?

I don't think banning a semiautomatic rifle because it looks scary is common sense. I've told you over and over that banning a 30 round magazine is stupid because anyone can fire just as many rounds in almost the same amount of time with 3 10 round magazines.

It's you who won't come right out and say that you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles you would just rather do it incrementally by first banning the scary looking ones then by saying that all semiautomatics are just like the banned weapon.

It's the old "how do you boil a frog" scenario.

How do you boil a frog? You put him in warm water then slowly turn up the heat.

And BTW owning a weapon is a right it says so in the Constitution. If you don't like it then get the second amendment repealed.

The boiling frog thing is a falacy. A frog will jump out of the pot if the water becomes uncomfortable for it. On the other hand, if you drop a frog into a pot that is already boiling, the shock will probably kill it...

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not Gun Ownership. So that bullshit won't fly. Otherwise, I want to have my very own 88MM Howitzer and 50 Cal Machine gun. Once you say that I can't have those, you've admitted the government can "regulate" what I can and can't have. So that argument fails.

Not that this is important to me. I don't base decisions on "What did a bunch of dead Slave Rapists think 200 years ago?" I live in 2013, and letting Joker Holmes have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip is just plain stupid.

It isn't about how "Scary" they look. It's about the capabilities they have, which are far beyond what a homeowner needs.

Let's be perfectly honest WHY the gun makers want to sell these weapons. Not because they serve any practical use for civilians, but because they are profitable. They aer already geared up to mass produce them for governments, and you just market them to Nancy Lanza and tell her the Zombie Apocolypse is coming, and there you go.

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not Gun Ownership.

So you are saying that the second amendment says that states can have militias?

It doesn't.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not Gun Ownership.

So you are saying that the second amendment says that states can have militias?

It doesn't.

It states that the militia should be "Well-Regulated"...

Which allows for sensible gun control laws.

 

[akelch]

No one is taking anyone’s guns, and there’ll be no new Federal ‘AWB.’

States with restrictive gun laws will keep those laws in place; states with few gun regulations will have no new laws enacted.

The problem of gun violence won’t be solved in the courts, and legislative efforts to address the problem will need to be free of new regulations and restrictions.

No one will take your guns? Is this your evidence for that comment?

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

Just who are "you guys"?

I don't think banning a semiautomatic rifle because it looks scary is common sense. I've told you over and over that banning a 30 round magazine is stupid because anyone can fire just as many rounds in almost the same amount of time with 3 10 round magazines.

It's you who won't come right out and say that you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles you would just rather do it incrementally by first banning the scary looking ones then by saying that all semiautomatics are just like the banned weapon.

It's the old "how do you boil a frog" scenario.

How do you boil a frog? You put him in warm water then slowly turn up the heat.

And BTW owning a weapon is a right it says so in the Constitution. If you don't like it then get the second amendment repealed.

The boiling frog thing is a falacy. A frog will jump out of the pot if the water becomes uncomfortable for it. On the other hand, if you drop a frog into a pot that is already boiling, the shock will probably kill it...

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not Gun Ownership. So that bullshit won't fly. Otherwise, I want to have my very own 88MM Howitzer and 50 Cal Machine gun. Once you say that I can't have those, you've admitted the government can "regulate" what I can and can't have. So that argument fails.

Not that this is important to me. I don't base decisions on "What did a bunch of dead Slave Rapists think 200 years ago?" I live in 2013, and letting Joker Holmes have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip is just plain stupid.

It isn't about how "Scary" they look. It's about the capabilities they have, which are far beyond what a homeowner needs.

So are you finally going to admit that your end goal is to ban all semiautomatic weapons?

After all Mr Army man you should know that any .223 semi auto is just as effective as an AR 15 .223 semiauto no matter what it looks like.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not Gun Ownership.

So you are saying that the second amendment says that states can have militias?

It doesn't.

It states that the militia should be "Well-Regulated"...

Which allows for sensible gun control laws.

It also says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/infringe

Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]

1actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright

2act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties [no object]: I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy

the right to keep and bear arms shall not be limited or undermined.

Words mean things

 

[The Rabbi]

[

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not Gun Ownership.

So you are saying that the second amendment says that states can have militias?

It doesn't.

It states that the militia should be "Well-Regulated"...

Which allows for sensible gun control laws.

True. You haven't proposed a sensible gun control law yet. Everything you have proposed has been tried and it is a dismal failure at preventing crime, or even preventing criminals from getting guns.
So what "sensible" gun control laws do you think would work?

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

So...section 8, then?

Nope, after the Gulf War, I realized I didn't want to die in the middle of a fucking desert so the Zionists could play "God Loves me the Very Bestest!"

The Zionist Marching song. "Onward Christian Soldiers"...

Horseshit. Your absolute terror comes through crystal clear with every post!

Naw, the gun itself is harmless. It's the crazy people with guns that conern me. The best argument for gun control is some of the batshit, crazy, racist evil things said by gun nuts on this very board. There's no end to the people they'd like to shoot if they thought they could get away with it... and it will get worse when they figure out they won't be winning any more elecions.

[

I'm afraid of crazy people with guns. And frankly, if you guys can't keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people (you largely don't even seem intent on trying) then we should probably just take everyone's guns and call it good.

Because you don't really need them.

You are terrified of guns, whether or not you will admit it. You are also a fascist, but that's nothing new.

I think that the benefits of gun owners (there really aren't any) are far outweighed by the costs (9148 murders and 13,000 suicides a year, law enforcement costs vastly more than what it costs in other industrialized countries.)

Are you IGNORANT, or are you just THIS FUCKING STUPID, kid? Many people are alive because they had a gun. My uncle is one of them...so am I.

Here's an idea. Since guns make law enforcement so fucking expensive, let's raise the taxes on guns and ammo to pay for it. Kind of like they did with tobacco.

Go for it...I have no plans to buy any new guns; I load my own and don't buy commercial ammo. (Of course, it would make much more sense to just end the farcical war on drugs.)

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Maybe the MSM needs to look at the rate of gun sales and NRA membership in the last few weeks. If the dems push gun control 2014 will be like 2010 on steroids...

NRA knows how to play on people's fears...however irrational. MSM did not invent Sandy Hook. They merely reported it. And they left photos of massacred 6-year-olds out of their coverage.

The NRA is a lobby, not a benevolent association for safety and education of gun owners. Period, the end.

I dare you to seize my guns without guns then. We'll see who's in charge.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, we are going to turn the lucrative gun market over to organized crime on a silver platter like we did with alcohol in the '30s?

How did that work out for ya?

BTW, nobody is going to be convicted of a gun control crime if I am on the jury.

 

[Erand7899]

Right because Iraq and the U.S. are even remotely similar. Great insight.

My point exactly, you want to remove semi automatics is the US
but in a war zone, where weapons may be turned on you, the US allow the civilians to have fully automatic weapons.

LOL. Because there is an actual need there for personal protection.

Contrast that with the state of things here where the only *need* for weapons is the imaginary scenario of an oppressive government trying to enslave the people.

One is reality and one is fantasy. I know you have a hard time telling the difference between the two.

Reality is that government always reaches a point where it tries to enslave the people. You can construct a time line for such an event by studying how the people react to government encroachment on personal freedoms. We are not too far from the tipping point, and once we reach it, there is no going back short of a major bloodbath.

Today, a large percentage of the American population are self centered, and more concerned with their own gratification, than they are with the future of the nation. That percentage continues to rise, and will reach a point where self government is beyond their control. They will sell their children into slavery by trading freedom for cradle to grave government benefits.

At that point, some smooth talking politician will attempt to declare himself president for life. He might get away with it, but more than likely, the military will oust him and take over as an interim government. That interim government will only end when the people rise up and throw them out. What then? Who knows.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My point exactly, you want to remove semi automatics is the US
but in a war zone, where weapons may be turned on you, the US allow the civilians to have fully automatic weapons.

LOL. Because there is an actual need there for personal protection.

Contrast that with the state of things here where the only *need* for weapons is the imaginary scenario of an oppressive government trying to enslave the people.

One is reality and one is fantasy. I know you have a hard time telling the difference between the two.

Reality is that government always reaches a point where it tries to enslave the people. You can construct a time line for such an event by studying how the people react to government encroachment on personal freedoms. We are not too far from the tipping point, and once we reach it, there is no going back short of a major bloodbath.

Today, a large percentage of the American population are self centered, and more concerned with their own gratification, than they are with the future of the nation. That percentage continues to rise, and will reach a point where self government is beyond their control. They will sell their children into slavery by trading freedom for cradle to grave government benefits.

At that point, some smooth talking politician will attempt to declare himself president for life. He might get away with it, but more than likely, the military will oust him and take over as an interim government. That interim government will only end when the people rise up and throw them out. What then? Who knows.

We're doomed, DOOMED, I SAY!!!! Head for your bunkers...The paranoids are after us!

 

[Erand7899]

LOL. Because there is an actual need there for personal protection.

Contrast that with the state of things here where the only *need* for weapons is the imaginary scenario of an oppressive government trying to enslave the people.

One is reality and one is fantasy. I know you have a hard time telling the difference between the two.

Reality is that government always reaches a point where it tries to enslave the people. You can construct a time line for such an event by studying how the people react to government encroachment on personal freedoms. We are not too far from the tipping point, and once we reach it, there is no going back short of a major bloodbath.

Today, a large percentage of the American population are self centered, and more concerned with their own gratification, than they are with the future of the nation. That percentage continues to rise, and will reach a point where self government is beyond their control. They will sell their children into slavery by trading freedom for cradle to grave government benefits.

At that point, some smooth talking politician will attempt to declare himself president for life. He might get away with it, but more than likely, the military will oust him and take over as an interim government. That interim government will only end when the people rise up and throw them out. What then? Who knows.

We're doomed, DOOMED, I SAY!!!! Head for your bunkers...The paranoids are after us!

It is not the paranoids that are following your footsteps, it is your own ignorance. Pick up a history book, or just look around the world, and see how many societies have fallen, and what the results were. Freedom requires both eternal vigilance and a healthy skepticism of government. Both are in short supply in this country today.

 

[Vandalshandle]

No, there is no hope. We are all going to be enslaved by our government. The next thing we know, they will be requiring us to put on uniforms and be sent half way around the world just to kill yellow men, for no particular reason.

...oh wait, they did that back in the 1960's.

Well, it won't be long before we will all be chained to benches in the bowels of giant cruise ships being forced to row Washington bureaucrats around the Caribbean, while they sip drinks with little umbrellas in them.