Diane Feinstein wants to take ALL of your guns

[Bob Blaylock]

I lost??? You're the one polishing knobs to keep the truth from coming out. You're a maggot and nobody, including me needs to respond to your desperate pleas for attention.

Guy, you come off like a crazy person, proving my axiom that the best argument for gun control is to let gun nuts talk.

Have you any idea at all how you come across to sane people?

 

[JoeB131]

Have you any idea at all how you come across to sane people?

Again, you think you are wearing magic underwear and you get to rule your own planet in the afterlife. Sanity and you don't even live in the same Zip Code.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Have you any idea at all how you come across to sane people?

Again, you think you are wearing magic underwear and you get to rule your own planet in the afterlife. Sanity and you don't even live in the same Zip Code.

LMAO ROTF LMAO. You're a loony tune screaming at the people passing by your padded cell.

In remaining with the rules, each post should contain something relative to the OP.

Diane Feinstein wants your guns; Joe Biden has pledged that he's coming for them. Well, okay Pilgrim, this town ain't gonna be big enough for the two of us.

If banning firearms could reduce deaths, then banning cigarettes should save lives and reduce deaths. If banning firearms could reduce deaths, we could save an equal number of lives by banning booze.

Drugs are illegal in America, but Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply. AND 70,000 people die each year from drug overdoses in America, 68 percent of said drugs are opioids... which means that opioids cost more lives than firearms.

Opioid Overdose | Drug Overdose | CDC Injury Center

So, we've outlawed opioids. The European Union outlawed opioids. Our fatality rate is NINE TIMES GREATER than that of the European Union. My conclusion is that there are other factors that are purely speculative that explains this.

Given that, outlawing firearms in a nation borne in revolution and holding personal Liberty in high esteem, I don't think that banning firearms is going to work in the United States. I mean, all these people think they're entitled to smoke, drink and do opioids (among other drugs.) Criminalizing it isn't stopping them. Maybe we should seek other answers.

I left the door to the insane asylum open.

 

[JoeB131]

Diane Feinstein wants your guns; Joe Biden has pledged that he's coming for them. Well, okay Pilgrim, this town ain't gonna be big enough for the two of us.

Quite right, the majority of us who don't want anything to do with guns are tired of dealing with the small sliver of nuts who are compensating for tiny peckers.

33,000 gun deaths
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
223 BILLION in economic losses due to guns
re-arranging our whole culture around a few nuts who might come in and start shooting.

Now, you guys could be sensible and meet us halfway. - Licensing, background checks, red flag laws - to keep guns out of the hands of the people even you agree shouldn't have them. But off course, you won't. You'll scream something about "Liberty" and what the Founding Fathers intended.

If banning firearms could reduce deaths, then banning cigarettes should save lives and reduce deaths. If banning firearms could reduce deaths, we could save an equal number of lives by banning booze.

There's a major difference that you don't get, buddy. People who die from cigarettes or booze usually are doing it to themselves over long periods of time as a habit. People who die from guns violence never asked to die from gun violence and often don't own guns themselves.

Now, we can waste time talking about "but, what about DUI". Okay. We spend a LOT of money, time and effort combating DUI, to the point you can't even drive slightly buzzed without risking tens of thousands of dollars in fines and jail time.

Drugs are illegal in America, but Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply. AND 70,000 people die each year from drug overdoses in America, 68 percent of said drugs are opioids... which means that opioids cost more lives than firearms.

Again, this is where you are confused.... I'm just guessing you aren't very smart. Drugs aren't "illegal" they are regulated. Unlike guns, they do have legitimate uses. But here's a crazy idea, next time you get surgery, you should go old school like the Founding Fathers intended.

So, we've outlawed opioids. The European Union outlawed opioids. Our fatality rate is NINE TIMES GREATER than that of the European Union. My conclusion is that there are other factors that are purely speculative that explains this.

Except we've never outlawed opioids. Now, you might have hit on something, though. Our problem with opioids and guns have a similar cause. Capitalism and Greed. Unlike Europe, which strictly regulates the distribution of opioids, Big Pharma in this country has been allowed to go hog wild, encouraging doctors to pass them out like candy. They market specifically to the addicts and keep them hooked up.

Same thing with guns. Unlike most countries that sensibly regulate who can own a gun, the gun manufacturers make darned sure that crazy people can get guns. Their entire marketing plan is geared towards the gun nut compensating for his "shortcomings", and making sure that criminals and crazy people have easy access so the gun nuts get scared and want to arm themselves like the Zombies are Coming.

Given that, outlawing firearms in a nation borne in revolution and holding personal Liberty in high esteem, I don't think that banning firearms is going to work in the United States. I mean, all these people think they're entitled to smoke, drink and do opioids (among other drugs.) Criminalizing it isn't stopping them. Maybe we should seek other answers.

Actually, most people don't think they are entitled to do opioids for fun. Smoking is rapidly declining as an activity. We've really cracked down on underage drinking and drunk driving.

This country was founded on a bunch of rich slave owners not wanting to pay their taxes and wanting to take land away from Native Americans, stuff the British were keeping them from doing. To say, "We should do what the Founding Fathers intended" is silly. The Founding fathers shit in chamber pots, chopped off limbs without anesthesia and bled people because they thought that was good medical treatment. The Founders certainly didn't want Indians and Slaves to own guns.

So instead of worrying what a bunch of genocidal slave rapists wanted 200 years ago, let's actually concentrate on what makes sense now. Does it make sense for you to own a gun because you wants to overthrow the government? Nope. The government has tanks. Does it make sense for you own a gun because you are scared someone is going to break into your house and take your stuff? Nope. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

I left the door to the insane asylum open.

Was that during your daring escape?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Diane Feinstein wants your guns; Joe Biden has pledged that he's coming for them. Well, okay Pilgrim, this town ain't gonna be big enough for the two of us.

Quite right, the majority of us who don't want anything to do with guns are tired of dealing with the small sliver of nuts who are compensating for tiny peckers.

33,000 gun deaths
70,000 gun injuries
400,000 gun crimes
223 BILLION in economic losses due to guns
re-arranging our whole culture around a few nuts who might come in and start shooting.

Now, you guys could be sensible and meet us halfway. - Licensing, background checks, red flag laws - to keep guns out of the hands of the people even you agree shouldn't have them. But off course, you won't. You'll scream something about "Liberty" and what the Founding Fathers intended.

If banning firearms could reduce deaths, then banning cigarettes should save lives and reduce deaths. If banning firearms could reduce deaths, we could save an equal number of lives by banning booze.

There's a major difference that you don't get, buddy. People who die from cigarettes or booze usually are doing it to themselves over long periods of time as a habit. People who die from guns violence never asked to die from gun violence and often don't own guns themselves.

Now, we can waste time talking about "but, what about DUI". Okay. We spend a LOT of money, time and effort combating DUI, to the point you can't even drive slightly buzzed without risking tens of thousands of dollars in fines and jail time.

Drugs are illegal in America, but Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply. AND 70,000 people die each year from drug overdoses in America, 68 percent of said drugs are opioids... which means that opioids cost more lives than firearms.

Again, this is where you are confused.... I'm just guessing you aren't very smart. Drugs aren't "illegal" they are regulated. Unlike guns, they do have legitimate uses. But here's a crazy idea, next time you get surgery, you should go old school like the Founding Fathers intended.

View attachment 310439

So, we've outlawed opioids. The European Union outlawed opioids. Our fatality rate is NINE TIMES GREATER than that of the European Union. My conclusion is that there are other factors that are purely speculative that explains this.

Except we've never outlawed opioids. Now, you might have hit on something, though. Our problem with opioids and guns have a similar cause. Capitalism and Greed. Unlike Europe, which strictly regulates the distribution of opioids, Big Pharma in this country has been allowed to go hog wild, encouraging doctors to pass them out like candy. They market specifically to the addicts and keep them hooked up.

Same thing with guns. Unlike most countries that sensibly regulate who can own a gun, the gun manufacturers make darned sure that crazy people can get guns. Their entire marketing plan is geared towards the gun nut compensating for his "shortcomings", and making sure that criminals and crazy people have easy access so the gun nuts get scared and want to arm themselves like the Zombies are Coming.

Given that, outlawing firearms in a nation borne in revolution and holding personal Liberty in high esteem, I don't think that banning firearms is going to work in the United States. I mean, all these people think they're entitled to smoke, drink and do opioids (among other drugs.) Criminalizing it isn't stopping them. Maybe we should seek other answers.

Actually, most people don't think they are entitled to do opioids for fun. Smoking is rapidly declining as an activity. We've really cracked down on underage drinking and drunk driving.

This country was founded on a bunch of rich slave owners not wanting to pay their taxes and wanting to take land away from Native Americans, stuff the British were keeping them from doing. To say, "We should do what the Founding Fathers intended" is silly. The Founding fathers shit in chamber pots, chopped off limbs without anesthesia and bled people because they thought that was good medical treatment. The Founders certainly didn't want Indians and Slaves to own guns.

So instead of worrying what a bunch of genocidal slave rapists wanted 200 years ago, let's actually concentrate on what makes sense now. Does it make sense for you to own a gun because you wants to overthrow the government? Nope. The government has tanks. Does it make sense for you own a gun because you are scared someone is going to break into your house and take your stuff? Nope. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

I left the door to the insane asylum open.

Was that during your daring escape?

Yep. I left the door to the insane asylum open. Sorry guys. Anyone here read his mindless drivel?

It looked like our resident troll was spouting some statistics.

Did you know that virtually all mass shooters are under the care of a psychologist / psychiatrist or have been within the last six months and virtually ALL of them are on or were recently on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs? AND, did you know that homicidal and suicidal thoughts are known side effects of those drugs?

Now, the typical liberal knee jerk reaction would be to ban SSRIs. But, the reality is, just like the guns, fewer than 1 percent of those who use SSRIs will suffer the negative effects of them. With most mass shooters, there are many other factors that contribute to the drug's negative effects.

There are people who already had violent tendencies and the SSRIs only made them worse. There are those who don't take the drugs as prescribed. There are people whose situations would end in violence because the drugs were not addressing the root cause of the problem. The point is, IF we didn't have SSRIs, there would be fewer mass shootings... MAYBE. It is speculative. Additionally, the 99 percent of patients on SSRIs do not commit a mass shooting.

So, what should happen is that the mental health community should be required to consider and use non-drug therapies before resorting to mind altering drugs. Those needing them should be carefully supervised. We should get out of the habit of thinking that drugs should be the panacea to the common ailments humans experience in the course of growing up. And my final thought is fair comment since our resident troll has tried to imply that I need drugs. If you study his writings, the damage drugs are doing to our society can be devastating.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Now, you guys could be sensible and meet us halfway.

There is no reason that we should. What are you offering us, in exchange for the essential liberty that you want to take from us, other than a false promise of safety—a promise that you know damn well is false? We've given up too much already, and received nothing in return. It's not time to give up any more; it's way past time to take back what we've already given up.

Benjamin Franklin addressed your “compromise” two hundred sixty-five years ago.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”​

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Now, you guys could be sensible and meet us halfway.

There is no reason that we should. What are you offering us, in exchange for the essential liberty that you want to take from us, other than a false promise of safety—a promise that you know damn well is false. We've given up too much already, and received nothing in return. It's not time to give up any more; it's way past time to take back what we've already given up.

Benjamin Franklin addressed your “compromise” two hundred sixty-five years ago.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”​

Now, you guys could be sensible and meet us halfway.

There is no reason that we should. What are you offering us, in exchange for the essential liberty that you want to take from us, other than a false promise of safety—a promise that you know damn well is false? We've given up too much already, and received nothing in return. It's not time to give up any more; it's way past time to take back what we've already given up.

Benjamin Franklin addressed your “compromise” two hundred sixty-five years ago.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”​

Bob,

Since I'm not willing to read any more of Joe's B.S. posts, I want to thank you for quoting that part where he accuses us of not meeting him half way.

Currently we have over 40,000 + plus federal, state, county and city statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, edicts, court holdings, etc. that govern the ownership of firearms. We outlawed the future manufacture of fully automatic weapons when the left could not find a single time a legally owned machine gun was used in a crime. We've recently outlawed bump stocks because they were associated with a single event. Adding insult to injury, had that shooter relied on semi-auto fire and better night optics that death toll would be much higher.

The paranoid gun haters should try to pull their heads out of their arses and even maybe even ask all those old guys that cling to the rifles and their Bibles about their individual experiences. Joe drones on and on about statistics and whatever other B.S. he thinks will fly, but cannot reach that threshold to prove causation.

All the numbers aside, I lived through ten years of gun control with the so - called "Assault Weapons Ban." It proved ineffective so it was not reauthorized as permanent law despite having a president willing to sign the bill. What I lived through convinced me that the founders / framers knew what they were talking about.

During the time of the so - called "Assault Weapons Ban," the federal government, with the assistance of DELTA Forces, raided a church in Waco, Texas, murdering seventeen children. They were after ONE man... a man that was in town at regular intervals and could have been arrested there OR when he was known to jog on the roads near the church. No. The federal government wanted to send a message to America - and it woke a lot of people up.

We surmise that the bombing of the Murrah building (that claimed around 300 lives IIRC) was in retaliation for the Waco outrage. The feds went after a former Green Beret named Randy Weaver (who used that experience to save my life BTW.) Feds murdered Randy's son, wife and the family dog. Randy's adopted son was shot, but lived. There was the murder of Gordon Kahl. The list was rapidly growing as we began to slip into a POLICE STATE.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure the security of a free state. I had a taste of what it would be like when the government thought they held all the cards and would use their might against the American people. We even got to see training exercises wherein UN troops went door to door in mock house to house search and seizures / weapons confiscation exercises.

We found out that in 1994 (the same year they were passing the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban") the military had queried U.S. Marines in a survey known as the Twenty Nine Palms Survey some telling questions. To quote one site:

"Do you realize," Cunningham stated during our telephone interview, "that 85.3 percent agreed with assigning troops to a mission that violates the Posse Comitatus Act?" This Act states that "it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus [power of the county], or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except [when] authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress.
...
While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion."

Twenty-Nine Palms Survey: What Really Motivated Its Author?

Today, the mindless idiots on the left want us to agree to let them be just 50 percent tyrannical. And 40,000 + laws aren't enough gun control? How about they meet us and support my proposals to decrease gun violence without gun control? I got just enough of a taste of gun control during the period of 1994 - 2004 to tell me what the real deal is. Hell no to gun control. We must insure the security of a free state.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you know that virtually all mass shooters are under the care of a psychologist / psychiatrist or have been within the last six months and virtually ALL of them are on or were recently on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs? AND, did you know that homicidal and suicidal thoughts are known side effects of those drugs?

Nope, none of that is true. IN fact, there is no link between SSRI and mass shootings.
There's a 100% linkage between mass shooters and guns.

PolitiFact - What’s behind the dubious claim that psychiatric drugs fuel mass shootings?

Readers pointed us to a 2018 report from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International. The commission bills itself as a watchdog of the mental health industry, and its report creates the impression that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between prescription drugs and violence.

Co-founded by the Church of Scientology, the commission is widely seen as a manifestation of Scientology’s antipathy toward the psychiatric field. L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology’s founder, helped launch the commission in 1969 after his dreams of seeing Scientology replace psychiatry fizzled, Stephen Kent, a sociologist at the University of Alberta who studies new religion, told an NPR affiliate station.

Now, the typical liberal knee jerk reaction would be to ban SSRIs. But, the reality is, just like the guns, fewer than 1 percent of those who use SSRIs will suffer the negative effects of them. With most mass shooters, there are many other factors that contribute to the drug's negative effects.

You can't kill anyone with an SSRI. YOu can kill people with guns. This isn't complicated.

So, what should happen is that the mental health community should be required to consider and use non-drug therapies before resorting to mind altering drugs. Those needing them should be carefully supervised. We should get out of the habit of thinking that drugs should be the panacea to the common ailments humans experience in the course of growing up. And my final thought is fair comment since our resident troll has tried to imply that I need drugs. If you study his writings, the damage drugs are doing to our society can be devastating.

Or we can stop reading Scientology inspired propaganda...

And speaking of whacky cult members.

 

[JoeB131]

Another whacky cult member speaks.

There is no reason that we should. What are you offering us, in exchange for the essential liberty that you want to take from us, other than a false promise of safety—a promise that you know damn well is false? We've given up too much already, and received nothing in return. It's not time to give up any more; it's way past time to take back what we've already given up.

Benjamin Franklin addressed your “compromise” two hundred sixty-five years ago.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The problem is, you work on the assumption that the Dead Slave Rapist really cared about "Liberty".

The thing is that guns do not make us free. Quite the contrary, our society is less free because of guns. We have a militarized police force that kills 900 citizens a year (compared to British cops, who shoot maybe a handful a year.) We have security cameras on every corner, metal detectors in our schools, active shooter drills in our workplaces, and a Prison Industrial complex that locks up millions.

Feeling the "Liberty" yet, Mormon Bob?

I'm not that worried about the government, Mormon Bob, even with a mutant like Trump running it. I am worried some nutcase who just got fired will come in shooting up where I work, or where I'm going to go see a movie because he thinks he's the Joker.

The reason why you guys don't want to meet us halfway is that nuts like you and Porter would probably get disqualified by any reasonable means test.

 

[JoeB131]

Since I'm not willing to read any more of Joe's B.S. posts,

Currently we have over 40,000 + plus federal, state, county and city statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, edicts, court holdings, etc. that govern the ownership of firearms. We outlawed the future manufacture of fully automatic weapons when the left could not find a single time a legally owned machine gun was used in a crime. We've recently outlawed bump stocks because they were associated with a single event. Adding insult to injury, had that shooter relied on semi-auto fire and better night optics that death toll would be much higher.

The fact that you spend time thinking about higher death tolls is kind of scary.. but here's the thing. Most of the 20K or 40K regulations are things like, "Don't shoot your gun in public." Nope. What we need is "If you are a certified crazy person, we don't let you buy a gun".

All the numbers aside, I lived through ten years of gun control with the so - called "Assault Weapons Ban." It proved ineffective so it was not reauthorized as permanent law despite having a president willing to sign the bill. What I lived through convinced me that the founders / framers knew what they were talking about.

Actually, the number of mass shootings declined during the AWB, and it sprung right back up again afterwards.

During the time of the so - called "Assault Weapons Ban," the federal government, with the assistance of DELTA Forces, raided a church in Waco, Texas, murdering seventeen children. They were after ONE man... a man that was in town at regular intervals and could have been arrested there OR when he was known to jog on the roads near the church. No. The federal government wanted to send a message to America - and it woke a lot of people up.

Uh, the Branch Davidians were given months to surrender peacefully, they refused to do so before they committed MASS SUICIDE. Now, normally, I don't have a problem with cultists killing themselves. But there were kids involved here.

Three investigations and they all concluded it was a mass suicide.

We surmise that the bombing of the Murrah building (that claimed around 300 lives IIRC) was in retaliation for the Waco outrage. The feds went after a former Green Beret named Randy Weaver (who used that experience to save my life BTW.) Feds murdered Randy's son, wife and the family dog. Randy's adopted son was shot, but lived. There was the murder of Gordon Kahl. The list was rapidly growing as we began to slip into a POLICE STATE.

Randy Weaver was a neo-Nazi who was dealing guns and shot at federal officers.

Again- best argument for gun control- let the gun nuts talk.

Today, the mindless idiots on the left want us to agree to let them be just 50 percent tyrannical. And 40,000 + laws aren't enough gun control? How about they meet us and support my proposals to decrease gun violence without gun control? I got just enough of a taste of gun control during the period of 1994 - 2004 to tell me what the real deal is. Hell no to gun control. We must insure the security of a free state.

You had to realize your pecker was tiny from 1994 to 2004?