Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[2aguy]

No...I said I would live with current background checks at gun stores.....pay attention.

You fight the fight your way, I'll fight it mine...

You've also said felons should not own guns.

And you're not fighting the fight here. You're debating gun control with a handful of anonymous Internet names but nothing changes because of what we say here - except in those very rare cases where someone hears honest discussion of right and wrong and realizes and comprehends the difference. You're telling us what you think. And what you're telling us, so therefore what you think, is that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is OK. The only difference between you and Robert O'Rourke is what is considered reasonable. But if any, any at all, is OK then any, any at all, is OK. If you accept that the government can infringe then you accept that the government can infringe. You're not at all, not even close, not in the smallest way, a 2nd Amendment guy.

 

[Slade3200]

True, but we don’t sell roofies at the local convenience store. What you’re gonna need to come to grips with is the fact that we don’t live in the wild Wild West anymore... as society becomes more civilized you're only going to see more Regulations on guns. That’s just the way it works. I am quite enjoying seeing you go after perhaps the biggest gun rights advocate on this board though. Please continue

First off, I am far and away the biggest gun rights advocate on this board. I sometimes wonder if I am the only gun rights advocate on this board.

First off, I don't accept that society is more civilized today than it was 150 years ago. Having more technology does not equate to civilization. Shitting in the streets, shooting up drugs in the streets, millions of vagrants and homeless sleeping on the sidewalks, gun fights at funerals wounding dozens, 1-year-old babies shot in their beds, fathers shot while crossing the street holding their daughter's hand, those are not signs of increased civilization.

So, it's not increased civilization that leads us to more regulations on guns; it's increased government control and decreased liberty. What you're describing is increased tyranny, not increased regulation due to increased civilization. If you were correct that increased government control must come with increased civilization then mark me a gun-toting, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, anarchist. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that 1984 is not only the inevitable outcome of society but is also a good outcome for society.

Thats a mighty lofty claim that you haven't earned in my eyes yet. I've seen 2guy on here for years not just using partisan talking points but backing up his arguments with facts, stats and articles. I don't agree with him on everything but I respect his process. The jury is still out on you, especially after that last comment.

If you don't think our society is more civilized than it was 150 years ago then I think you have some serious judgement problems. Technology isn't the only measure of civility... Infrastructure and education and development and engagement. I could spend my time listing the many many many different areas that we've evolved since the Wild West days but what's the point. That is all common knowledge.

We have now colonized our territory which wasn't the case at the time of our countries founding. Our cities have streets, fire departments, police departments, emergency services, public schools, day care, homeless shelters, food banks, WIFI, cable TV, and 4G signals for our mobile phones. If you can't see that and the plethora of additional elements as an evolved civilization then you're blind. The fact you are pointing towards what drug addicts and mentally ill homeless people are doing makes me think you are aware of whats going on but are choosing to engage in a dishonest way.

 

[2aguy]

True, but we don’t sell roofies at the local convenience store. What you’re gonna need to come to grips with is the fact that we don’t live in the wild Wild West anymore... as society becomes more civilized you're only going to see more Regulations on guns. That’s just the way it works. I am quite enjoying seeing you go after perhaps the biggest gun rights advocate on this board though. Please continue

First off, I am far and away the biggest gun rights advocate on this board. I sometimes wonder if I am the only gun rights advocate on this board.

First off, I don't accept that society is more civilized today than it was 150 years ago. Having more technology does not equate to civilization. Shitting in the streets, shooting up drugs in the streets, millions of vagrants and homeless sleeping on the sidewalks, gun fights at funerals wounding dozens, 1-year-old babies shot in their beds, fathers shot while crossing the street holding their daughter's hand, those are not signs of increased civilization.

So, it's not increased civilization that leads us to more regulations on guns; it's increased government control and decreased liberty. What you're describing is increased tyranny, not increased regulation due to increased civilization. If you were correct that increased government control must come with increased civilization then mark me a gun-toting, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, anarchist. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that 1984 is not only the inevitable outcome of society but is also a good outcome for society.

Thats a mighty lofty claim that you haven't earned in my eyes yet. I've seen 2guy on here for years not just using partisan talking points but backing up his arguments with facts, stats and articles. I don't agree with him on everything but I respect his process. The jury is still out on you, especially after that last comment.

If you don't think our society is more civilized than it was 150 years ago then I think you have some serious judgement problems. Technology isn't the only measure of civility... Infrastructure and education and development and engagement. I could spend my time listing the many many many different areas that we've evolved since the Wild West days but what's the point. That is all common knowledge.

We have now colonized our territory which wasn't the case at the time of our countries founding. Our cities have streets, fire departments, police departments, emergency services, public schools, day care, homeless shelters, food banks, WIFI, cable TV, and 4G signals for our mobile phones. If you can't see that and the plethora of additional elements as an evolved civilization then you're blind. The fact you are pointing towards what drug addicts and mentally ill homeless people are doing makes me think you are aware of whats going on but are choosing to engage in a dishonest way.

We are much more civilized....our violent crime is, for the most part, confined to small, multi-block areas of democrat party controlled neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities.........stay out of those areas and you chance of facing a violent criminal is very small....

Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

 

[Slade3200]

No...I said I would live with current background checks at gun stores.....pay attention.

You fight the fight your way, I'll fight it mine...

You've also said felons should not own guns.

And you're not fighting the fight here. You're debating gun control with a handful of anonymous Internet names but nothing changes because of what we say here - except in those very rare cases where someone hears honest discussion of right and wrong and realizes and comprehends the difference. You're telling us what you think. And what you're telling us, so therefore what you think, is that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is OK. The only difference between you and Robert O'Rourke is what is considered reasonable. But if any, any at all, is OK then any, any at all, is OK. If you accept that the government can infringe then you accept that the government can infringe. You're not at all, not even close, not in the smallest way, a 2nd Amendment guy.

Let me ask you what I've asked others, since you are a zero infringement constitutional guy. What in our constitution is stopping a 711 from selling a pack of skittles and an uzi to a 10 year old? Or do you think that sale should be righteous?

 

[Slade3200]

True, but we don’t sell roofies at the local convenience store. What you’re gonna need to come to grips with is the fact that we don’t live in the wild Wild West anymore... as society becomes more civilized you're only going to see more Regulations on guns. That’s just the way it works. I am quite enjoying seeing you go after perhaps the biggest gun rights advocate on this board though. Please continue

First off, I am far and away the biggest gun rights advocate on this board. I sometimes wonder if I am the only gun rights advocate on this board.

First off, I don't accept that society is more civilized today than it was 150 years ago. Having more technology does not equate to civilization. Shitting in the streets, shooting up drugs in the streets, millions of vagrants and homeless sleeping on the sidewalks, gun fights at funerals wounding dozens, 1-year-old babies shot in their beds, fathers shot while crossing the street holding their daughter's hand, those are not signs of increased civilization.

So, it's not increased civilization that leads us to more regulations on guns; it's increased government control and decreased liberty. What you're describing is increased tyranny, not increased regulation due to increased civilization. If you were correct that increased government control must come with increased civilization then mark me a gun-toting, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, anarchist. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that 1984 is not only the inevitable outcome of society but is also a good outcome for society.

Thats a mighty lofty claim that you haven't earned in my eyes yet. I've seen 2guy on here for years not just using partisan talking points but backing up his arguments with facts, stats and articles. I don't agree with him on everything but I respect his process. The jury is still out on you, especially after that last comment.

If you don't think our society is more civilized than it was 150 years ago then I think you have some serious judgement problems. Technology isn't the only measure of civility... Infrastructure and education and development and engagement. I could spend my time listing the many many many different areas that we've evolved since the Wild West days but what's the point. That is all common knowledge.

We have now colonized our territory which wasn't the case at the time of our countries founding. Our cities have streets, fire departments, police departments, emergency services, public schools, day care, homeless shelters, food banks, WIFI, cable TV, and 4G signals for our mobile phones. If you can't see that and the plethora of additional elements as an evolved civilization then you're blind. The fact you are pointing towards what drug addicts and mentally ill homeless people are doing makes me think you are aware of whats going on but are choosing to engage in a dishonest way.

We are much more civilized....our violent crime is, for the most part, confined to small, multi-block areas of democrat party controlled neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities.........stay out of those areas and you chance of facing a violent criminal is very small....

Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

Thank you, yes of course we are more civilized, thats common sense. But Mr. Biggest Gun Advocate on USMB here disagrees. He is displaying spectacular judgement isn't he?

 

[daveman]

I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.

Oh really? You mean there ain't no smoking gun with your fingerprints on it?

You're telling me a cop is taking your fingerprints at a gun sale to register your "lawfully" purchased Firearms for any other reason than to put you in prison? No. They hold even a legal gun purchase against you like a felony on your record the rest of your life.

I live in Kentucky, a rational state. No fingerprints required for a firearms purchase. Minimum age 18 for a handgun, no minimum age for shotguns or rifles.

This will make Slade3200 freak out.

Why would I freak out about that?

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.

All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?

Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.

Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad

Oh, look at that, you're sucking Obama's ass.

Veteran's organizations, who care about veterans far more than you and Obama do, said the memo was bullshit and insulting to veterans. And Napolitano herself apologized for the report.

Your whole "IM NOT A DEMOCRAT" schtick would have a lot more traction if you didn't regurgitate Democrat bullshit.

Frankly I have no clue what talking points Dems use. This was the first time I’ve seen that memo and I gave my thoughts about it after I read it. Where was I wrong?

Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Ow. I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my optic nerves.

good for you... why do you care so much to label me as a democrat anyways? It’s kind of a weird obsession

You'd freak out because people are allowed to buy weapons in Kentucky without the permission of the government.

And you seem to take being called a Democrat pretty personally. If you're not, what's the problem?

I don't have a problem. If people can legally buy whatever they want in Kentucky and its unregulated then go right ahead. Why would I freak out about that??

Because you keep pushing for more regulation.

Are you playing stupid, or are you really stupid?

I’m doing just fine you’re the one that seems confused here. But keep tell me about what I do and do not support... its very insightful

I haven't seen you condemn any Democrat gun control proposals -- and you've advocated many of them.

 

[bodecea]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Wait! Former President Obama took all your guns.....that's why no 2nd Amendment supporters today are caring about the government jack-booted thugs in Portland. They are helpless without their guns.

wow leftists run Portland has jack-booted thugs
So who created these thugs in Portland was it Portland elected leftists?

You funny!

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.

Oh really? You mean there ain't no smoking gun with your fingerprints on it?

You're telling me a cop is taking your fingerprints at a gun sale to register your "lawfully" purchased Firearms for any other reason than to put you in prison? No. They hold even a legal gun purchase against you like a felony on your record the rest of your life.

I live in Kentucky, a rational state. No fingerprints required for a firearms purchase. Minimum age 18 for a handgun, no minimum age for shotguns or rifles.

This will make Slade3200 freak out.

Why would I freak out about that?

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.

All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?

Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.

Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad

Oh, look at that, you're sucking Obama's ass.

Veteran's organizations, who care about veterans far more than you and Obama do, said the memo was bullshit and insulting to veterans. And Napolitano herself apologized for the report.

Your whole "IM NOT A DEMOCRAT" schtick would have a lot more traction if you didn't regurgitate Democrat bullshit.

Frankly I have no clue what talking points Dems use. This was the first time I’ve seen that memo and I gave my thoughts about it after I read it. Where was I wrong?

Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Ow. I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my optic nerves.

good for you... why do you care so much to label me as a democrat anyways? It’s kind of a weird obsession

You'd freak out because people are allowed to buy weapons in Kentucky without the permission of the government.

And you seem to take being called a Democrat pretty personally. If you're not, what's the problem?

I don't have a problem. If people can legally buy whatever they want in Kentucky and its unregulated then go right ahead. Why would I freak out about that??

Because you keep pushing for more regulation.

Are you playing stupid, or are you really stupid?

I’m doing just fine you’re the one that seems confused here. But keep tell me about what I do and do not support... its very insightful

I haven't seen you condemn any Democrat gun control proposals -- and you've advocated many of them.

Ask me about anything you want and I'll let you know what I think if you're that interested.

 

[Levant]

Let me ask you what I've asked others, since you are a zero infringement constitutional guy. What in our constitution is stopping a 711 from selling a pack of skittles and an uzi to a 10 year old? Or do you think that sale should be righteous?

Should be righteous? What does that mean?

But until 1968 it was perfectly legal do do just that with one glaring problem: Skittles were not invented until 1974 and not sold in the United States until 1979.

For 179 years, sellers acting responsibly and parents teaching responsibly, prevented children from having guns. Can you tell any stories of children buying uzis and killing people with them before the law changed in 1968?

Just like others who think that gun crime is a special category of crime, you're ignoring that the gun is not the cause of crime. Children who want guns to kill people get them in spite of the law. Children with guns is a symptom of a broken justice system. In order to eliminate crime, deal with the real cause of the crime and with the actual crime. Gun laws don't work. They don't keep children from getting guns any more than they keep adult criminals from getting guns.

 

[Slade3200]

Let me ask you what I've asked others, since you are a zero infringement constitutional guy. What in our constitution is stopping a 711 from selling a pack of skittles and an uzi to a 10 year old? Or do you think that sale should be righteous?

Should be righteous? What does that mean?

But until 1968 it was perfectly legal do do just that with one glaring problem: Skittles were not invented until 1974 and not sold in the United States until 1979.

For 179 years, sellers acting responsibly and parents teaching responsibly, prevented children from having guns. Can you tell any stories of children buying uzis and killing people with them before the law changed in 1968?

Just like others who think that gun crime is a special category of crime, you're ignoring that the gun is not the cause of crime. Children who want guns to kill people get them in spite of the law. Children with guns is a symptom of a broken justice system. In order to eliminate crime, deal with the real cause of the crime and with the actual crime. Gun laws don't work. They don't keep children from getting guns any more than they keep adult criminals from getting guns.

Righteous means moral and acceptable... I'm asking if you think it should be allowable to sell a 10 year old an uzi through our legal system.

No I can not point to an instance that a 10 year old bought an uzi and killed somebody with it before 1968... and yet I am perfectly fine with an age limit regulation on who we legally sell guns to. Just as I'm find with age restrictions on drivers licenses and alcohol sales.

See I just gave you a direct answer to your questions. I notice that you avoided answering mine. So would you care to try again?

 

[Levant]

True, but we don’t sell roofies at the local convenience store. What you’re gonna need to come to grips with is the fact that we don’t live in the wild Wild West anymore... as society becomes more civilized you're only going to see more Regulations on guns. That’s just the way it works. I am quite enjoying seeing you go after perhaps the biggest gun rights advocate on this board though. Please continue

First off, I am far and away the biggest gun rights advocate on this board. I sometimes wonder if I am the only gun rights advocate on this board.

First off, I don't accept that society is more civilized today than it was 150 years ago. Having more technology does not equate to civilization. Shitting in the streets, shooting up drugs in the streets, millions of vagrants and homeless sleeping on the sidewalks, gun fights at funerals wounding dozens, 1-year-old babies shot in their beds, fathers shot while crossing the street holding their daughter's hand, those are not signs of increased civilization.

So, it's not increased civilization that leads us to more regulations on guns; it's increased government control and decreased liberty. What you're describing is increased tyranny, not increased regulation due to increased civilization. If you were correct that increased government control must come with increased civilization then mark me a gun-toting, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, anarchist. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that 1984 is not only the inevitable outcome of society but is also a good outcome for society.

Thats a mighty lofty claim that you haven't earned in my eyes yet. I've seen 2guy on here for years not just using partisan talking points but backing up his arguments with facts, stats and articles. I don't agree with him on everything but I respect his process. The jury is still out on you, especially after that last comment.

If you don't think our society is more civilized than it was 150 years ago then I think you have some serious judgement problems. Technology isn't the only measure of civility... Infrastructure and education and development and engagement. I could spend my time listing the many many many different areas that we've evolved since the Wild West days but what's the point. That is all common knowledge.

We have now colonized our territory which wasn't the case at the time of our countries founding. Our cities have streets, fire departments, police departments, emergency services, public schools, day care, homeless shelters, food banks, WIFI, cable TV, and 4G signals for our mobile phones. If you can't see that and the plethora of additional elements as an evolved civilization then you're blind. The fact you are pointing towards what drug addicts and mentally ill homeless people are doing makes me think you are aware of whats going on but are choosing to engage in a dishonest way.

We are much more civilized....our violent crime is, for the most part, confined to small, multi-block areas of democrat party controlled neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities.........stay out of those areas and you chance of facing a violent criminal is very small....

Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

Thank you, yes of course we are more civilized, thats common sense. But Mr. Biggest Gun Advocate on USMB here disagrees. He is displaying spectacular judgement isn't he?

It's not at all common sense that we're more civilized. Murder is generally limited to areas occupied by less than 10% of the population, that's true. That we don't care about those means we are not more civilized. Indoctrination centers where we send our children to learn about how awful they are for being born one color or another does not show civilization. What is happening in our cities with homelessness, drugs, disease, crime, IS an indication of low-civilization. For you and not2aguy to sit in your lily-white neighborhoods, in complete peace and safety, and pretend that the whole country lives as peacefully and safely as do you does not mean the world or the nation is more civilized than it was before.

But that's not the issue. Let's say we are more civilized. Your claim is that more gun control and more gun laws are the natural evolution of being more civilized. That view proves its own lie. If we were more civilized then violent crimes would go away on their own. There'd be no need for new gun laws because civilized people don't shoot other people. No laws required. That you claim the need for new laws proves that you we're not as civilized as you pretend.

The reason there are more gun laws is because government, unlike you, does NOT believe we are so much more civilized. They (our government overlords) think that we are so uncivilized that we must be controlled with more laws.

 

[daveman]

I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.

Oh really? You mean there ain't no smoking gun with your fingerprints on it?

You're telling me a cop is taking your fingerprints at a gun sale to register your "lawfully" purchased Firearms for any other reason than to put you in prison? No. They hold even a legal gun purchase against you like a felony on your record the rest of your life.

I live in Kentucky, a rational state. No fingerprints required for a firearms purchase. Minimum age 18 for a handgun, no minimum age for shotguns or rifles.

This will make Slade3200 freak out.

Why would I freak out about that?

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.

All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?

Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.

Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad

Oh, look at that, you're sucking Obama's ass.

Veteran's organizations, who care about veterans far more than you and Obama do, said the memo was bullshit and insulting to veterans. And Napolitano herself apologized for the report.

Your whole "IM NOT A DEMOCRAT" schtick would have a lot more traction if you didn't regurgitate Democrat bullshit.

Frankly I have no clue what talking points Dems use. This was the first time I’ve seen that memo and I gave my thoughts about it after I read it. Where was I wrong?

Yes, I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Ow. I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my optic nerves.

good for you... why do you care so much to label me as a democrat anyways? It’s kind of a weird obsession

You'd freak out because people are allowed to buy weapons in Kentucky without the permission of the government.

And you seem to take being called a Democrat pretty personally. If you're not, what's the problem?

I don't have a problem. If people can legally buy whatever they want in Kentucky and its unregulated then go right ahead. Why would I freak out about that??

Because you keep pushing for more regulation.

Are you playing stupid, or are you really stupid?

I’m doing just fine you’re the one that seems confused here. But keep tell me about what I do and do not support... its very insightful

I haven't seen you condemn any Democrat gun control proposals -- and you've advocated many of them.

Ask me about anything you want and I'll let you know what I think if you're that interested.

It's funny how you think your views haven't been made clear in this thread.

 

[Levant]

It's funny how you think your views haven't been made clear in this thread.

It's a tell when someone says, "I support the 2nd Amendment, but..."

 

[Levant]

Righteous means moral and acceptable... I'm asking if you think it should be allowable to sell a 10 year old an uzi through our legal system.

No I can not point to an instance that a 10 year old bought an uzi and killed somebody with it before 1968... and yet I am perfectly fine with an age limit regulation on who we legally sell guns to. Just as I'm find with age restrictions on drivers licenses and alcohol sales.

See I just gave you a direct answer to your questions. I notice that you avoided answering mine. So would you care to try again?

You're being obtuse. I asked you for clarification on your question - on which, by the way, you were even more obtuse in your clarification.

You say righteous means moral and acceptable. Then you ask if I think it should be allowable legally. You can't make up your own mind on what you're asking me so how do you think I am supposed to answer you? Clearly it's a trick question and not an honest one.

 

[Slade3200]

True, but we don’t sell roofies at the local convenience store. What you’re gonna need to come to grips with is the fact that we don’t live in the wild Wild West anymore... as society becomes more civilized you're only going to see more Regulations on guns. That’s just the way it works. I am quite enjoying seeing you go after perhaps the biggest gun rights advocate on this board though. Please continue

First off, I am far and away the biggest gun rights advocate on this board. I sometimes wonder if I am the only gun rights advocate on this board.

First off, I don't accept that society is more civilized today than it was 150 years ago. Having more technology does not equate to civilization. Shitting in the streets, shooting up drugs in the streets, millions of vagrants and homeless sleeping on the sidewalks, gun fights at funerals wounding dozens, 1-year-old babies shot in their beds, fathers shot while crossing the street holding their daughter's hand, those are not signs of increased civilization.

So, it's not increased civilization that leads us to more regulations on guns; it's increased government control and decreased liberty. What you're describing is increased tyranny, not increased regulation due to increased civilization. If you were correct that increased government control must come with increased civilization then mark me a gun-toting, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, anarchist. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that 1984 is not only the inevitable outcome of society but is also a good outcome for society.

Thats a mighty lofty claim that you haven't earned in my eyes yet. I've seen 2guy on here for years not just using partisan talking points but backing up his arguments with facts, stats and articles. I don't agree with him on everything but I respect his process. The jury is still out on you, especially after that last comment.

If you don't think our society is more civilized than it was 150 years ago then I think you have some serious judgement problems. Technology isn't the only measure of civility... Infrastructure and education and development and engagement. I could spend my time listing the many many many different areas that we've evolved since the Wild West days but what's the point. That is all common knowledge.

We have now colonized our territory which wasn't the case at the time of our countries founding. Our cities have streets, fire departments, police departments, emergency services, public schools, day care, homeless shelters, food banks, WIFI, cable TV, and 4G signals for our mobile phones. If you can't see that and the plethora of additional elements as an evolved civilization then you're blind. The fact you are pointing towards what drug addicts and mentally ill homeless people are doing makes me think you are aware of whats going on but are choosing to engage in a dishonest way.

We are much more civilized....our violent crime is, for the most part, confined to small, multi-block areas of democrat party controlled neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities.........stay out of those areas and you chance of facing a violent criminal is very small....

Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

Thank you, yes of course we are more civilized, thats common sense. But Mr. Biggest Gun Advocate on USMB here disagrees. He is displaying spectacular judgement isn't he?

It's not at all common sense that we're more civilized. Murder is generally limited to areas occupied by less than 10% of the population, that's true. That we don't care about those means we are not more civilized. Indoctrination centers where we send our children to learn about how awful they are for being born one color or another does not show civilization. What is happening in our cities with homelessness, drugs, disease, crime, IS an indication of low-civilization. For you and not2aguy to sit in your lily-white neighborhoods, in complete peace and safety, and pretend that the whole country lives as peacefully and safely as do you does not mean the world or the nation is more civilized than it was before.

But that's not the issue. Let's say we are more civilized. Your claim is that more gun control and more gun laws are the natural evolution of being more civilized. That view proves its own lie. If we were more civilized then violent crimes would go away on their own. There'd be no need for new gun laws because civilized people don't shoot other people. No laws required. That you claim the need for new laws proves that you we're not as civilized as you pretend.

The reason there are more gun laws is because government, unlike you, does NOT believe we are so much more civilized. They (our government overlords) think that we are so uncivilized that we must be controlled with more laws.

You are being disengenuous with your arguments. Pointing to a small portion of the impoverished population and painting them as a reflection of our society as a whole is BS. Same

Righteous means moral and acceptable... I'm asking if you think it should be allowable to sell a 10 year old an uzi through our legal system.

No I can not point to an instance that a 10 year old bought an uzi and killed somebody with it before 1968... and yet I am perfectly fine with an age limit regulation on who we legally sell guns to. Just as I'm find with age restrictions on drivers licenses and alcohol sales.

See I just gave you a direct answer to your questions. I notice that you avoided answering mine. So would you care to try again?

You're being obtuse. I asked you for clarification on your question - on which, by the way, you were even more obtuse in your clarification.

You say righteous means moral and acceptable. Then you ask if I think it should be allowable legally. You can't make up your own mind on what you're asking me so how do you think I am supposed to answer you? Clearly it's a trick question and not an honest one.

are you really avoiding answering my question again to squabble over the definition of a word?! Holy crap. Forget about the word righteous if your still confused. In you opinion should it be legal for a 10 year old to buy an uzi from any store no questions asked?

 

[Levant]

are you really avoiding answering my question again to squabble over the definition of a word?! Holy crap. Forget about the word righteous if your still confused. In you opinion should it be legal for a 10 year old to buy an uzi from any store no questions asked?

It should absolutely be legal for anyone to buy a gun from anywhere, anyone, as it was for the first 179 years of our nation without issue.

 

[Slade3200]

are you really avoiding answering my question again to squabble over the definition of a word?! Holy crap. Forget about the word righteous if your still confused. In you opinion should it be legal for a 10 year old to buy an uzi from any store no questions asked?

It should absolutely be legal for anyone to buy a gun from anywhere, anyone, as it was for the first 179 years of our nation without issue.

Say it then. You think a 10 year old should be allowed to buy an uzi by themselves no questions asked and then walk around town with it. Confirm please

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Say it then. You think a 10 year old should be allowed to buy an uzi by themselves no questions asked and then walk around town with it. Confirm please

You want ALL guns banned and confiscated, along with the means of production. Admit it, you fuck!!!

 

[Slade3200]

Say it then. You think a 10 year old should be allowed to buy an uzi by themselves no questions asked and then walk around town with it. Confirm please

You want ALL guns banned and confiscated, along with the means of production. Admit it, you fuck!!!

Wrong. I want nothing of the sort.

 

[Levant]

are you really avoiding answering my question again to squabble over the definition of a word?! Holy crap. Forget about the word righteous if your still confused. In you opinion should it be legal for a 10 year old to buy an uzi from any store no questions asked?

It should absolutely be legal for anyone to buy a gun from anywhere, anyone, as it was for the first 179 years of our nation without issue.

Say it then. You think a 10 year old should be allowed to buy an uzi by themselves no questions asked and then walk around town with it. Confirm please

I answered your question clearly. I'm not going to play games. If you have a point, make it.

When I was a kid in the 5th and 6th grade, it was not unusual at all for us to get out of school, walk home (all by ourselves) get our .22 rifles, and then walk a mile or so to the edge of town, then continue out into the hills and the woods, and shoot crows. No one thought a thing about kids walking around with guns. Of course our guns weren't as ugly as modern guns but they were just as deadly.