Beto keeps giving: Will pay for confiscating guns by attacking gun makers...let your fascist out ..

[Old Man Grumbles]

"Firearm related deaths" would be an acceptable way of labeling it, but you know as well as I do that's not what our media and politicians do. They play it off as though those 30,000 deaths per year are random murders and they NEVER mention the actual breakdown.

I agree with you on that. This is why I say it's the center of the political spectrum that needs to try to work together for reasonable restrictions. The breakdown is important and should be used properly, as well as separating out the suicide statistics into a different category.

As it works now there is just too much extremist views being shouted back and forth. It gains nothing and just keeps the bitterness going.There is no solution that will ever stop all of these crimes from happening, but that shouldn't be a reason for not trying to prevent some of them is it?

 

[satrebil]

Millions, Gracie?

Just an off the cuff guess. I could be wrong. Average over 100 per day for lots of years makes millions seem possible. If you've done the math, I don't have a problem accepting a different number.

An average 30,000 year die to a gun in the USA. Right off the bat, 2/3rd's of those are suicides. That makes for 10,000 "homicides" per year - which INCLUDES justifiable homicides. But even ignoring that, at 10,000 homicides per year it would take 100 years at current rates to achieve one million deaths, let alone the "millions" you pulled out of your ass.

Meanwhile, 250,000 people die per year to medical malpractice. That's a million in 4 years and 2.5 million in a decade. Maybe you should focus your spurious "I wanna save lives" outrage there.

This thread is about guns dumbass. Quit trying to change the subject.

Awww... you don't like it that I just blew your bullshit "we need to restrict guns to save lives" argument right out of the water? Tough.

No, but yours was a dumb ass remark. There are lots of ways to save lives. only an idiot would think only one should be considered.

Sure there a lots of ways to save lives. So why don't you focus your efforts on the WORST areas, numbnuts? Gun deaths don't even make the top 10.

 

[BULLDOG]

Beto understands that killing a few is better than killing a lot. We should be doing what others are doing.

There you have it:

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC MORALITY: The ends justify the means.

Now you know why they can lie, cheat, steal and break laws and not see a thing wrong with it.

In psychological parlance, that is known as sociopathic behavior, what killers use to not feel any remorse at all for their murders.

That is nothing like what I said. Why do you lie so much?

 

[satrebil]

"Firearm related deaths" would be an acceptable way of labeling it, but you know as well as I do that's not what our media and politicians do. They play it off as though those 30,000 deaths per year are random murders and they NEVER mention the actual breakdown.

I agree with you on that. This is why I say it's the center of the political spectrum that needs to try to work together for reasonable restrictions. The breakdown is important and should be used properly, as well as separating out the suicide statistics into a different category.

As it works now there is just too much extremist views being shouted back and forth. It gains nothing and just keeps the bitterness going.There is no solution that will ever stop all of these crimes from happening, but that shouldn't be a reason for not trying to prevent some of them is it?

We have enough restrictions. I'm done "compromising" my rights away and receiving nothing in return. What we NEED is the legal system to stop being so light-handed on offenders. I swear every other day I read about some recidivist degenerate who was arrested for something heinous, and some moonbat judge let's him back out on the street, only for him to assault/rob/rape/murder someone else.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

It's a nothing... that shitstain will never be POTUS... Buttplug has better odds and he won't either

But he exposes who the Democrats really are, and the ultimate goal of ALL of them.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This is why I say it's the center of the political spectrum that needs to try to work together for reasonable restrictions

The right if the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

True, they do let them out on bail to await trial, which means we need to fix the 8th Amendment so that states can have stricter guidelines for bail. Primarily the word "excessive" needs to be clearly defined.

Now this is just an honest question - I'm not being a smartass - what do you believe you have compromised on?

 

[toobfreak]

This is why I say it's the center of the political spectrum that needs to try to work together for reasonable restrictions.

That is just a sad, naive delusion and you know it, grandpa. History has shown that anytime you give the government the power to restrict a little, it ends up restricting a lot. Look at the American Indian, look at prohibition, look at Blacks.

A little "reasonable" restriction won't do a damn thing, so then it will become "reasonable" to restrict a little more.

And more.

And more.

And more.

Eventually when gun crime is down to only 10 a year and one of the lowest in the world, it will be reasoned that if they just go that last step and outright ban firearms ownership entirely, they can reduce it to zero. After all, it is to save lives!!!

The reality is that this will never happen because:

1. Restrictions do nothing to address the real cause of murder: violent tendency, desire, need and desperation.
2. You simply disarm the people who in 99.99% of the cases, were never the problem to begin with.
3. Those that want to rob or murder simply find something else to use.
4. The real killers don't obey the law so still will have guns to keep murdering a now known defenseless populous.

There can be no real solution to crime and murder, guns or otherwise, unless we get serious and honest about the real causes behind what drives people in the first place! And that is the LAST THING our leaders really want because ultimately, the blame really comes back to THEM.

The main cause behind violence and crime is GOVERNMENT. Virtually every problem our society faces was caused by government in the first place and they never seek to solve any of it because MANAGING IT (writing laws, regulations, courts, prosecution and prison) is THEIR JOB SECURITY.

AFTER ALL, they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions, YOU DO.

They are all safe and sound behind locked, gated communities with guards far away from you.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

This is why I say it's the center of the political spectrum that needs to try to work together for reasonable restrictions

The right if the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

What infringement has affected you? If we want it that plain, then convicted felons have the right to have firearms as well since the right shall not be infringed, Are you okay with that?

 

[toobfreak]

Beto understands that killing a few is better than killing a lot. We should be doing what others are doing.

There you have it:

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC MORALITY: The ends justify the means.

Now you know why they can lie, cheat, steal and break laws and not see a thing wrong with it.

In psychological parlance, that is known as sociopathic behavior, what killers use to not feel any remorse at all for their murders.

That is nothing like what I said. Why do you lie so much?

That is EXACTLY what you said. If you weren't so sociopathic to begin with, you'd be able to realize it.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

This is why I say it's the center of the political spectrum that needs to try to work together for reasonable restrictions.

That is just a sad, naive delusion and you know it, grandpa. History has shown that anytime you give the government the power to restrict a little, it ends up restricting a lot. Look at the American Indian, look at prohibition, look at Blacks.

A little "reasonable" restriction won't do a damn thing, so then it will become "reasonable" to restrict a little more.

And more.

And more.

And more.

Eventually when gun crime is down to only 10 a year and one of the lowest in the world, it will be reasoned that if they just go that last step and outright ban firearms ownership entirely, they can reduce it to zero. After all, it is to save lives!!!

The reality is that this will never happen because:

1. Restrictions do nothing to address the real cause of murder: violent tendency, desire, need and desperation.
2. You simply disarm the people who in 99.99% of the cases, were never the problem to begin with.
3. Those that want to rob or murder simply find something else to use.
4. The real killers don't obey the law so still will have guns to keep murdering a now known defenseless populous.

There can be no real solution to crime and murder, guns or otherwise, unless we get serious and honest about the real causes behind what drives people in the first place! And that is the LAST THING our leaders really want because ultimately, the blame really comes back to THEM.

The main cause behind violence and crime is GOVERNMENT. Virtually every problem our society faces was caused by government in the first place and they never seek to solve any of it because MANAGING IT (writing laws, regulations, courts, prosecution and prison) is THEIR JOB SECURITY.

AFTER ALL, they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions, YOU DO.

They are all safe and sound behind locked, gated communities with guards far away from you.

I agree with a lot of what you said - have no doubt about that. I, for one disagree with banning AR rifles or confiscating them. But at the same time I see no problem restricting fully automatic weapons, bump stocks, or letting felons posses guns. While government does screw things up, we must remember it was government (in essence) who wrote 2A. If we demand that the "shall not be infringed" in 2A be the standard we won't like the outcome of that at all.

 

[satrebil]

True, they do let them out on bail to await trial, which means we need to fix the 8th Amendment so that states can have stricter guidelines for bail. Primarily the word "excessive" needs to be clearly defined.

Now this is just an honest question - I'm not being a smartass - what do you believe you have compromised on?

Well to be honest I was speaking proverbially. I personally haven't compromised on much as most of the restrictive gun legislation that exists today was passed either before I was born or too young to do anything about. Nonetheless I still consider them infringements on my 2nd Amendment rights and will absolutely not comply with any new draconian measures, such as "assault weapon" bans, buybacks, magazine or ammo limitations, irrelevant background checks, registration, etc.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

Well to be honest I was speaking proverbially. I personally haven't compromised on much as most of the restrictive gun legislation that exists today was passed either before I was born or too young to do anything about. Nonetheless I still consider them infringements on my 2nd Amendment rights and will absolutely not comply with any new draconian measures, such as "assault weapon" bans, buybacks, magazine or ammo limitations, irrelevant background checks, registration, etc.

Ok, I hear what you are saying and I can agree with what you said. I don't want AR bans, buybacks or confiscations, magazine or ammo restrictions, gun registration, etc. Background checks we're stuck with since they already exist. Yet, at the same time I don't want it wide open either. I'd prefer not to have to confront my neighbor with my AR against his M60 (yeah I'm old) either.

 

[BULLDOG]

Beto understands that killing a few is better than killing a lot. We should be doing what others are doing.

There you have it:

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC MORALITY: The ends justify the means.

Now you know why they can lie, cheat, steal and break laws and not see a thing wrong with it.

In psychological parlance, that is known as sociopathic behavior, what killers use to not feel any remorse at all for their murders.

That is nothing like what I said. Why do you lie so much?

That is EXACTLY what you said. If you weren't so sociopathic to begin with, you'd be able to realize it.

Your imagination is running away with you again. I know what I said.

 

[toobfreak]

Beto understands that killing a few is better than killing a lot. We should be doing what others are doing.

There you have it:

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC MORALITY: The ends justify the means.

Now you know why they can lie, cheat, steal and break laws and not see a thing wrong with it.

In psychological parlance, that is known as sociopathic behavior, what killers use to not feel any remorse at all for their murders.

That is nothing like what I said. Why do you lie so much?

That is EXACTLY what you said. If you weren't so sociopathic to begin with, you'd be able to realize it.

Your imagination is running away with you again. I know what I said.

Yes, but your opacity never leaves you. You only know what you think you meant not what other people read you say.

 

[BULLDOG]

Beto understands that killing a few is better than killing a lot. We should be doing what others are doing.

There you have it:

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC MORALITY: The ends justify the means.

Now you know why they can lie, cheat, steal and break laws and not see a thing wrong with it.

In psychological parlance, that is known as sociopathic behavior, what killers use to not feel any remorse at all for their murders.

That is nothing like what I said. Why do you lie so much?

That is EXACTLY what you said. If you weren't so sociopathic to begin with, you'd be able to realize it.

Your imagination is running away with you again. I know what I said.

Yes, but your opacity never leaves you. You only know what you think you meant not what other people read you say.

You're off your meds again, aren't you?

 

[toobfreak]

There you have it:

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC MORALITY: The ends justify the means.

Now you know why they can lie, cheat, steal and break laws and not see a thing wrong with it.

In psychological parlance, that is known as sociopathic behavior, what killers use to not feel any remorse at all for their murders.

That is nothing like what I said. Why do you lie so much?

That is EXACTLY what you said. If you weren't so sociopathic to begin with, you'd be able to realize it.

Your imagination is running away with you again. I know what I said.

Yes, but your opacity never leaves you. You only know what you think you meant not what other people read you say.

You're off your meds again, aren't you?

You are my medication. Laughing at you thinking you are clever with your 89 IQ comebacks is the best medicine known to mankind.

 

[satrebil]

Well to be honest I was speaking proverbially. I personally haven't compromised on much as most of the restrictive gun legislation that exists today was passed either before I was born or too young to do anything about. Nonetheless I still consider them infringements on my 2nd Amendment rights and will absolutely not comply with any new draconian measures, such as "assault weapon" bans, buybacks, magazine or ammo limitations, irrelevant background checks, registration, etc.

Ok, I hear what you are saying and I can agree with what you said. I don't want AR bans, buybacks or confiscations, magazine or ammo restrictions, gun registration, etc. Background checks we're stuck with since they already exist. Yet, at the same time I don't want it wide open either. I'd prefer not to have to confront my neighbor with my AR against his M60 (yeah I'm old) either.

I, as well, do not want it "wide open". I view the 2A in a fairly strict manner, insomuch as I believe that virtually anything that constitutes a "bearable arm" should be legal to own and operate. This would include your neighbors M60. Now, technically he still can own an M60 - but only with the governments position, and I disagree with that.

Where it gets hazy is what one might consider a "weapon of mass destruction". Say a rocket launcher. A bearable arm? Yep. Should the average citizen have one? Probably not.

So where do I personally draw the line? I can't give a concrete answer. But what I will say is this: My principle support of the 2A is that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. That being the case, I believe said citizenry should be armed adequately enough that they could effectively fight off their own government. Insurgencies and insurrections around the world, time and time again, have shown us that weapons of mass destruction are not needed to achieve this. So I would start drawing my line somewhere in there.

Further, I think some of our felony restrictions are too broad. I do think that violent felons should be restricted from owning firearms. But the guy who cheated on his taxes and caught a felony for it? Not so much. I also oppose the Lautenberg Amendment in it's current form as it prohibits "domestic abusers" from owning firearms. The problem is that domestic abuse enhancers are, in my opinion, handed out with little discretion. Say a man or woman catches their significant other cheating on them, and in a flurry of emotion they slap them. Under current law that's domestic abuse. Should they deserve to lose the 2A rights for the rest of their lives over that? I don't believe so.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

Excellent reply! I'll speak to it in parts.

I, as well, do not want it "wide open". I view the 2A in a fairly strict manner, insomuch as I believe that virtually anything that constitutes a "bearable arm" should be legal to own and operate. This would include your neighbors M60. Now, technically he still can own an M60 - but only with the governments position, and I disagree with that.

OK, I can understand that. Though if my neighbor has that M60 I'm going to have to get an M2. Seriously though, to my thinking an M60, and an M2, aren't needed in anyone's arsenal.

Where it gets hazy is what one might consider a "weapon of mass destruction". Say a rocket launcher. A bearable arm? Yep. Should the average citizen have one? Probably not.

Agreed.

So where do I personally draw the line? I can't give a concrete answer. But what I will say is this: My principle support of the 2A is that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. That being the case, I believe said citizenry should be armed adequately enough that they could effectively fight off their own government. Insurgencies and insurrections around the world, time and time again, have shown us that weapons of mass destruction are not needed to achieve this. So I would start drawing my line somewhere in there.

Nor can I give a concrete answer as to where the line should be. I believe, as you do, that it is an armed citizenry that stands against a tyrannical government. Weapons of mass destruction aren't necessary, as you state, since they'd likely kill as many innocents as enemies. I do not subscribe to the belief that US military forces wouldn't fight/fire on fellow citizens. Maybe some wouldn't, but I believe some would. Am unarmed populace would fair as well as the Czechs did in 1968.

Further, I think some of our felony restrictions are too broad. I do think that violent felons should be restricted from owning firearms. But the guy who cheated on his taxes and caught a felony for it? Not so much. I also oppose the Lautenberg Amendment in it's current form as it prohibits "domestic abusers" from owning firearms. The problem is that domestic abuse enhancers are, in my opinion, handed out with little discretion. Say a man or woman catches their significant other cheating on them, and in a flurry of emotion they slap them. Under current law that's domestic abuse. Should they deserve to lose the 2A rights for the rest of their lives over that? I don't believe so.

Violent felons - I agree. Domestic abuse is a bit tougher. I'd say if there was a pattern of domestic abuse, or an escalation of abuse, then taking away firearms from them would be proper and justified. But, I also think domestic abusers need more than a short jail sentence. Add in anger management, counseling, etc. to try and change the abusers behavior.

So we have common agreement in more than one aspect. This shows that rational discussion could well lead to agreeable restrictions without jeopardizing one's rights under 2A. It just takes reasoned discussions and cooperative work to find where the lines should be drawn.

 

[2aguy]

Someone please find Beto's Lego's so he can occupy himself with something he understands!

Bulldog, sounds like you would want ALL firearms confiscated from society??

I'm not giving up my guns.

Glad to hear it. Neither am I. Do you support the idea of confiscating semi-automatic AR type rifles? Once those are gone from civilian hands what is next, semi-auto pistols?

Not on a widespread basis, however, if some nutbag has already threatened others, or there is reason to believe they might twist off, you're damn right I want his guns taken. We both know that the AR is a military design and built to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible. It shouldn't be manufactured or sold to the public. There is more to an AR than just being a semi-auto, even if that is what the gun nuts claim.

No, the AR-15 is not a military design it is a simple, semi-automatic rifle, just like all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns that millions of Americans own.

You are either really stupid or lying.....