Anti-gunners have to explain these cases .......

[Bob Blaylock]

Your post is a lie.

Have you ever seen C_Clayton_Jones post anything that wasn't a lie?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Guns kill people. Amazing, you forgot Rittenhouse.

No people were killed in connection with anything to do with Mr. Rittenhouse.

Two subhuman pieces of criminal shit were exterminated, but those do not count as people.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand or care about the distinction between criminals and human beings.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

“Anti-gunners” are on the side of criminals, and against the side of human beings.

And that is why they do not answer the questions in my signature line when I directly ask them for their answers......

True.

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......​

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?​

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?​

Those on the left wrong are on the side of the rapist. Few will openly admit it, but if they don't actively want the woman to be raped, wish they were the ones getting to do it themselves, they have, at the very least, a depraved-heart indifference to the woman being raped or otherwise harmed.

They would gladly sent that women to prison for possessing a weapon, or better yet, for using that weapon to stop some piece of shit from raping her, but they will just as gladly make sure that the rapist goes free.

These are the same filth who want to allow dangerous, mentally-defective, morally-depraved male perverts calling themselves “trans women” to have unfettered access to places where women are particularly vulnerable, such as restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, communal showers, and so on; for the very same reasons.

 

[Captain Caveman]

62, and growing.....CWB Chicago is the website for crime in Chicago.......and they don't even cover all of these stories......

Oh well, if you can cover 42,220 more, that's the whole of the US done. Just 99.85% to go.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The old debating by hypotheticals technique.

Ok, the serial rapist is you, so yes, I hope she blows your fucking brains out.

What point do you think you are making?

If I were a serial rapist, then of course, I wouldn't want my head blown off. But if I were a serial rapist, then I would fully deserve to have my head blown off, or better yet, to die in some much more painful manner. And if I were a serial rapist, the world would be made a much better place if that was what happened to me.

I'm not a serial rapist, though. I am, however, a husband, a brother, a cousin, a nephew, an uncle, and a friend to many wonderful women. If any of my sister, my niece, my female cousins, my aunts, or other women with whom I were acquainted was raped, I would want the subhuman piece of shit responsible for it to have its head blown off, or better yet, to die in some much more painful manner.


I care much more about the safety and well-being of women in general, and especially fo those with whom I am acquainted, than I would ever care about any subhuman piece of shit rapist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guns kill people.

Guns can be used to kill people.
This explains why our right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution.

 

[Rye Catcher]

The explanation is obvious.

“Anti-gunners” are on the side of criminals, and against the side of human beings. Most will deny it if confronted directly, but the polices that they support put the lie to their denials. As you very often point out, it is the same elements that are opposed to allowing government to take appropriate measures to remove criminals from free society and to protect humans from them, who also seek to deny humans the right to possess the means to defend ourselves against criminals.

It's people like you who are out of touch with reality. Supporters for gun control are not "Anti-Gunners"; those who are sober, sane and obey the laws of our nation have the privilege to own firearms built for sport or defense. However, it is not an absolute Right.

Guns, per se, are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, the word is "Arms". And arms include bombs, land minds, cannons, SAMS, torpedoes, grenades and other weapons of war controlled by law. So are long guns and hand guns, and thus they too need to be controlled and not to be sold or given to others without background checks.

 

[Rye Catcher]

What point do you think you are making?

If I were a serial rapist, then of course, I wouldn't want my head blown off. But if I were a serial rapist, then I would fully deserve to have my head blown off, or better yet, to die in some much more painful manner. And if I were a serial rapist, the world would be made a much better place if that was what happened to me.

I'm not a serial rapist, though. I am, however, a husband, a brother, a cousin, a nephew, an uncle, and a friend to many wonderful women. If any of my sister, my niece, my female cousins, my aunts, or other women with whom I were acquainted was raped, I would want the subhuman piece of shit responsible for it to have its head blown off, or better yet, to die in some much more painful manner.


I care much more about the safety and well-being of women in general, and especially fo those with whom I am acquainted, than I would ever care about any subhuman piece of shit rapist.

There are laws to punish rapists, and laws against vigilantes too.

 

[2aguy]

It's people like you who are out of touch with reality. Supporters for gun control are not "Anti-Gunners"; those who are sober, sane and obey the laws of our nation have the privilege to own firearms built for sport or defense. However, it is not an absolute Right.

Guns, per se, are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, the word is "Arms". And arms include bombs, land minds, cannons, SAMS, torpedoes, grenades and other weapons of war controlled by law. So are long guns and hand guns, and thus they too need to be controlled and not to be sold or given to others without background checks.

War is Peace, Peace is War. Freedom is Slavery, Slavery is Freedom......

The 1st Amendment does not mention specific religions, just "religions." So this means the government can ban any and all religions as long as "religion" in general is protected.....

The 1st Amendment doesn't protect journalists....just "The Press" in general.......so in order to be a journalist you will need to get permission from the state.....


Right?


You are such a moron...

 

[2aguy]

It's people like you who are out of touch with reality. Supporters for gun control are not "Anti-Gunners"; those who are sober, sane and obey the laws of our nation have the privilege to own firearms built for sport or defense. However, it is not an absolute Right.

Guns, per se, are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, the word is "Arms". And arms include bombs, land minds, cannons, SAMS, torpedoes, grenades and other weapons of war controlled by law. So are long guns and hand guns, and thus they too need to be controlled and not to be sold or given to others without background checks.

Supporters for gun control are not "Anti-Gunners";

I agree completely.....you guys support guns in your hands and in the hands of the government agents you want to use to punish and murder your political enemies......we know this from human history....

 

[Rye Catcher]

War is Peace, Peace is War. Freedom is Slavery, Slavery is Peace......

The 1st Amendment does not mention specific religions, just "religions." So this means the government can ban any and all religions as long as "religion" in general is protected.....

The 1st Amendment doesn't protect journalists....just "The Press" in general.......so in order to be a journalist you will need to get permission from the state.....


Right?


You are such a moron...

LOL What an absurd effort to protect gun ownership.

Q. Do you support a Paranoid Schizophrenic's absolute right to own or possess a firearm?

Q. Do you believe you can hunt down and kill an unarmed rapist?

 

[2aguy]

LOL What an absurd effort to protect gun ownership.

Q. Do you support a Paranoid Schizophrenic's absolute right to own or possess a firearm?

Q. Do you believe you can hunt down and kill an unarmed rapist?

Felons and the dangerously mentally ill, determined through the courts, do not have a Right to own guns.......

Once an attack is stopped, you cannot kill your attacker.

Now...you answer these......

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
=======
The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."
Does this make sense to you?

 

[Rye Catcher]

BTW:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

[2aguy]

BTW:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And leave it to you to know them by heart......

 

[Rye Catcher]

Felons and the dangerously mentally ill, determined through the courts, do not have a Right to own guns.......

Once an attack is stopped, you cannot kill your attacker.

Now...you answer these......

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
=======
The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.

A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."
Does this make sense to you?

STATEMENT: "Felons and the dangerously mentally ill, determined through the courts, do not have a Right to own guns......."

RESPONSE: Herein is the proof that "shall not be infringed" is hyperbole, and thus supports the opinion that arms can be are legally controlled.

Here's the problem:

Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever a person attempts to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer. This is to ensure that the buyer is not legally prohibited from having the gun.

While federal law requires background checks for all gun sales by licensed gun dealers, it does not require background checks for guns sold by unlicensed sellers, like non-dealers who sell guns online or at gun shows. This loophole enables people with felony convictions, domestic abuse restraining orders, and other people with prohibiting histories to buy guns with no questions asked. The loophole should be closed to require background checks on all gun sales—not just on the sale of firearms from licensed gun dealers.

Background Checks on All Gun Sales

People with dangerous histories can easily circumvent the background check system simply by purchasing their firearm online or at a gun show.

everytownresearch.org

Do you agree with this statement or do you still stand by "shall not be infringed"?

 

[Rye Catcher]

And leave it to you to know them by heart......

Comes with an education, a brain not a heart.

 

[2aguy]

STATEMENT: "Felons and the dangerously mentally ill, determined through the courts, do not have a Right to own guns......."

RESPONSE: Herein is the proof that "shall not be infringed" is hyperbole, and thus supports the opinion that arms can be are legally controlled.

Here's the problem:

Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever a person attempts to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer. This is to ensure that the buyer is not legally prohibited from having the gun.

While federal law requires background checks for all gun sales by licensed gun dealers, it does not require background checks for guns sold by unlicensed sellers, like non-dealers who sell guns online or at gun shows. This loophole enables people with felony convictions, domestic abuse restraining orders, and other people with prohibiting histories to buy guns with no questions asked. The loophole should be closed to require background checks on all gun sales—not just on the sale of firearms from licensed gun dealers.

Background Checks on All Gun Sales

People with dangerous histories can easily circumvent the background check system simply by purchasing their firearm online or at a gun show.

everytownresearch.org

Do you agree with this statement or do you still stand by "shall not be infringed"?

No....universal background checks are simply the step you need in order to demand gun registration. Private sales of guns are not the source of criminals guns. Straw buyers, knowingly selling to criminals is a crime......gone into with the full intent of selling weapons to prohibited people.

You guys want gun registration...you need to lock down who has what gun before you pass gun bans and confiscation...you know this from all the other countries that first registered guns, then later banned them......

Sell that to biden voters...they are dumb enough to not understand what you are doing.

You can't know that a background check was done without registering guns.......and the added cost of requiring background checks for private gun sales is simply a bonus for gun grabbers....when the Widow jones is told by her lawyer that he has to spend between 50-250 dollars to sell her husbands gun collection...anti-gunners hope she will simply choose to hand over the collection to the police......

 

[2aguy]

STATEMENT: "Felons and the dangerously mentally ill, determined through the courts, do not have a Right to own guns......."

RESPONSE: Herein is the proof that "shall not be infringed" is hyperbole, and thus supports the opinion that arms can be are legally controlled.

Here's the problem:

Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever a person attempts to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer. This is to ensure that the buyer is not legally prohibited from having the gun.

While federal law requires background checks for all gun sales by licensed gun dealers, it does not require background checks for guns sold by unlicensed sellers, like non-dealers who sell guns online or at gun shows. This loophole enables people with felony convictions, domestic abuse restraining orders, and other people with prohibiting histories to buy guns with no questions asked. The loophole should be closed to require background checks on all gun sales—not just on the sale of firearms from licensed gun dealers.

Background Checks on All Gun Sales

People with dangerous histories can easily circumvent the background check system simply by purchasing their firearm online or at a gun show.

everytownresearch.org

Do you agree with this statement or do you still stand by "shall not be infringed"?

People who commit felonies are held in prison....their lose their freedom of movement........to try to say that banning convicted felons and the adjudicated, dangerously mentally ill as demonstrating that "shall not be infringed," is a silly concept is just weak on your part...

You want to infringe on law abiding people who have done nothing wrong.......to them applies "shall not be infringed," the very infringing that you want desperately to do....

 

[2aguy]

STATEMENT: "Felons and the dangerously mentally ill, determined through the courts, do not have a Right to own guns......."

RESPONSE: Herein is the proof that "shall not be infringed" is hyperbole, and thus supports the opinion that arms can be are legally controlled.

Here's the problem:

Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever a person attempts to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer. This is to ensure that the buyer is not legally prohibited from having the gun.

While federal law requires background checks for all gun sales by licensed gun dealers, it does not require background checks for guns sold by unlicensed sellers, like non-dealers who sell guns online or at gun shows. This loophole enables people with felony convictions, domestic abuse restraining orders, and other people with prohibiting histories to buy guns with no questions asked. The loophole should be closed to require background checks on all gun sales—not just on the sale of firearms from licensed gun dealers.

Background Checks on All Gun Sales

People with dangerous histories can easily circumvent the background check system simply by purchasing their firearm online or at a gun show.

everytownresearch.org

Do you agree with this statement or do you still stand by "shall not be infringed"?

Now my question....

Do you support a free app that allows anyone, anywhere to conduct a criminal background check on anyone...with no record kept.....? With complete access to both Federal and State criminal Justice records.


And no gun registration.

You want to sell your gun.....pull up the app, punch in the name, birthday of the buyer, you get yes or no to criminal record.....and that's it.......no record is kept of the search........


Do you support this?

 

[2aguy]

STATEMENT: "Felons and the dangerously mentally ill, determined through the courts, do not have a Right to own guns......."

RESPONSE: Herein is the proof that "shall not be infringed" is hyperbole, and thus supports the opinion that arms can be are legally controlled.

Here's the problem:

Background checks are the foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Current federal law requires that background checks be conducted whenever a person attempts to buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer. This is to ensure that the buyer is not legally prohibited from having the gun.

While federal law requires background checks for all gun sales by licensed gun dealers, it does not require background checks for guns sold by unlicensed sellers, like non-dealers who sell guns online or at gun shows. This loophole enables people with felony convictions, domestic abuse restraining orders, and other people with prohibiting histories to buy guns with no questions asked. The loophole should be closed to require background checks on all gun sales—not just on the sale of firearms from licensed gun dealers.

Background Checks on All Gun Sales

People with dangerous histories can easily circumvent the background check system simply by purchasing their firearm online or at a gun show.

everytownresearch.org

Do you agree with this statement or do you still stand by "shall not be infringed"?

Yes or no. Do you want to register guns?