Diane Feinstein wants to take ALL of your guns

[JoeB131]

[
You are wrong not all gun owners admit to owning a gun.
Some gun owners buy privately or make their own firearms.
It's kind of hard to stop someone from getting a gun when you're dead.
Cruz would have had his name added to the cannot buy a gun list if it had not been for that obama education rule that prevented the police from recording altercation that had with children
OH GOD YES I WILL SHOOT YOUR ASS IF YOU TRY TO TAKE MY GUNS
and I will not be alone.

I always say, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Hellbilly]

Upon further inspection this app seems to be overrun with teenage girls.
Must be what K9 faps to.

Sick ****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your a pathetic brainwashed liberal scumbag. Fact


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Happy New Year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
You are wrong not all gun owners admit to owning a gun.
Some gun owners buy privately or make their own firearms.
It's kind of hard to stop someone from getting a gun when you're dead.
Cruz would have had his name added to the cannot buy a gun list if it had not been for that obama education rule that prevented the police from recording altercation that had with children
OH GOD YES I WILL SHOOT YOUR ASS IF YOU TRY TO TAKE MY GUNS
and I will not be alone.

I always say, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

Thanks for proving my point.

It's nutty to believe defending a right is nutty
If you can't defend all the rights in the bill of rights you deserve no rights.

 

[JoeB131]

It's nutty to believe defending a right is nutty
If you can't defend all the rights in the bill of rights you deserve no rights.

All the other "rights" in the Bill of rights make sense.

Letting an untrained civilian own a gun because he wants to feel better about his shortcomings isn't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's nutty to believe defending a right is nutty
If you can't defend all the rights in the bill of rights you deserve no rights.

All the other "rights" in the Bill of rights make sense.

Letting an untrained civilian own a gun because he wants to feel better about his shortcomings isn't.

Being able to defend yourself sounds crazy to you?

 

[rightwinger]

Where are the lying liberals that claim otherwise?

https://vm.tiktok.com/CDGGdn/

Diane Feinstein has long fought for tighter gun controls ever since she saw her friends Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk slaughtered in front of her
Same thing happened with Reagan after he was shot.

Called having a dog in the fight

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I always say, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

Thanks for proving my point.

It is quite telling that you think that someone expressing an intent and willingness to defend himself against armed criminals seeking to rob him by force of his rightful property, and to violate his explicitly-affirmed Constitutional rights, supports any point of yours.

Letting an untrained civilian own a gun because he wants to feel better about his shortcomings isn't.

It's worthless, Gillettized cowards such as yourself who keep speaking of such “shortcomings”, usually in more vulgar terms than you used this time. I think it's clear enough whose “shortcomings” are genuinely relevant, here.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Letting an untrained civilian own a gun because he wants to feel better about his shortcomings isn't.

Being able to defend yourself sounds crazy to you?

It seems crazy to those who are on the side of the criminals and tyrants against whom a decent, law-abiding citizen might need to defend himself.

 

[K9Buck]

Diane Feinstein has long fought for tighter gun controls ever since she saw her friends Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk slaughtered in front of her
Same thing happened with Reagan after he was shot.

Called having a dog in the fight

Do you agree with Feinstein that law-abiding citizens should NOT be able to carry a gun to protect themselves form large, violent thugs?

 

[K9Buck]

Letting an untrained civilian own a gun because he wants to feel better about his shortcomings isn't.

LOL. It takes less training to fire a gun than it does to drive a ******* car.

You would prefer to see a vulnerable woman raped and strangled to death than to see her shoot a serial rapist.

 

[K9Buck]

I always say, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

Why do you believe that the founding fathers were "gun nuts"?

 

[JoeB131]

Being able to defend yourself sounds crazy to you?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy... When Kellerman figured this out, the NRA got the Government to ban gun studies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Being able to defend yourself sounds crazy to you?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy... When Kellerman figured this out, the NRA got the Government to ban gun studies.

That's a lie
I know thousands of gun owners none of them have killed themselves. and the only person I know that killed himself was a friend from high school who made his own gun back in the '70s shot himself in the head.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you believe that cities and states should decide how to regulate the first amendment too?

depends on the issue and the regulation

And what other explicitly-stated Constitutional rights are you willing to allow states and cities to regulate away?

What, even, is the point of having the Bill of Rights, if states and cities are free to disregard it in the manner that you advocate?

Any when there is a risk to the public safety. That’s why we have laws about yelling bomb and fire, libel and slander laws, and regulations on who can legally purchase and carry weapons in public. This isn’t new and regulations arent exclusive to the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you believe that cities and states should decide how to regulate the first amendment too?

depends on the issue and the regulation

And what other explicitly-stated Constitutional rights are you willing to allow states and cities to regulate away?

What, even, is the point of having the Bill of Rights, if states and cities are free to disregard it in the manner that you advocate?

Any when there is a risk to the public safety. That’s why we have laws about yelling bomb and fire, libel and slander laws, and regulations on who can legally purchase and carry weapons in public. This isn’t new and regulations arent exclusive to the second amendment.

I see nothing wrong with someone losing their second amendment right when they abused that right just like when the media abuses it's first amendment right it should lose that right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy... When Kellerman figured this out, the NRA got the Government to ban gun studies.

That's a lie

In another thread, someone laid out several of the flaws in Kellermann's “study”. One that I knew of, long ago, was a bit of willfully-deceptive statistical sleight-of-hand on Kellermann's part. He counted, as “a gun in the home”, every instance of a gun brought into someone's home by a criminal intent on using that gun to commit a crime against the occupants of that home. So, by his methods, anyone murdered in his own home, with a gun, was killed by a “gun in the home”, unless the shot was fired from outside the home; even where there was no gun in the home until the criminal brought it in with him to commit that crime. And by framing his conclusion as “A gun in the home is «X» times more likely to kill a household member than [to kill] a bad guy.”, he intentionally left out the overwhelming vast majority of successful legitimate uses of a gun for defense, in which the bad guy is not killed. Credible estimates put the number of such successful uses of a firearm for legitimate self-defense at something on the order of millions a year, compared to only a few tens of thousands of people who die in any way having to do with a firearm.

It also turns out that Kellermann greatly-exaggerated what, even by his own dishonest methods, his “study” showed. Called on that, he was compelled to revise that estimate down greatly, to a number in the low single-digit range. A quick Google search shows me that the revised figure, down from 43%, was 2.7%.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy... When Kellerman figured this out, the NRA got the Government to ban gun studies.

That's a lie

In another thread, someone laid out several of the flaws in Kellermann's “study”. One that I knew of, long ago, was a bit of willfully-deceptive statistical sleight-of-hand on Kellermann's part. He counted, as “a gun in the home”, every instance of a gun brought into someone's home by a criminal intent on using that gun to commit a crime against the occupants of that home. So, by his methods, anyone murdered in his own home, with a gun, was killed by a “gun in the home”, unless the shot was fired from outside the home; even where there was no gun in the home until the criminal brought it in with him to commit that crime. And by framing his conclusion as “A gun in the home is «X» times more likely to kill a household member than [to kill] a bad guy.”, he intentionally left out the overwhelming vast majority of successful legitimate uses of a gun for defense, in which the bad guy is not killed. Credible estimates put the number of such successful uses of a firearm for legitimate self-defense at something on the order of millions a year, compared to only a few tens of thousands of people who die in any way having to do with a firearm.

It also turns out that Kellermann greatly-exaggerated what, even by his own dishonest methods, his “study” showed. Called on that, he was compelled to revise that estimate down greatly, to a number in the low single-digit range. A quick Google search shows me that the revised figure, down from 43%, was 2.7%.

I personally don't know of any gun owners who have killed themselves accidentally or intentionally do you know anyone?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And what other explicitly-stated Constitutional rights are you willing to allow states and cities to regulate away?

Any when there is a risk to the public safety. That’s why we have laws about yelling bomb and fire, libel and slander laws, and regulations on who can legally purchase and carry weapons in public. This isn’t new and regulations arent [sic] exclusive to the second amendment.

One cannot be prosecuted for libel, slander, or causing a panic by falsely crying “Fire!” or “Bomb!”, unless it is shown that by doing so, they have caused actual harm, or somehow violated someone else's rights. In general, under the First Amendment, with very few, very narrow exceptions, government may not impose prior restraint on speech or expression.

Nobody's rights are violated in any way, simply by someone else being allowed to possess a weapon. Nobody's rights are violated, until someone actually uses a weapon to unjustifiably harm or threaten someone else, or to create an undue safety hazard. And any act by which anyone would do that is already rightful illegal, and not, by any rational interpretation, protected under the Second Amendment.

Government is not justified, and has no legitimate authority, to impose prior restrain on free citizens' right to keep and bear arms; only to impose punishment for acts in which one abuses that right, to cause undue harm, threat, or safety hazard to others.

 

[Slade3200]

It takes about 10 seconds to fact check and look up context. Next time you should take 10 seconds before posting stuff like this.

NRA leader mangles Feinstein quote about taking guns

I remember seeing and hearing the remark, in the full context in which she made it, on Sixty Minutes, twenty-some years ago.

In the article which you linked, Mr. Greenberg is flat-out, willfully, knowing lying. In the original context, it was very, very clear what Dianne Feinswine meant; even more so when you consider much of the rest of her history regarding this issue.

Well there a great thing called you tube where you can go back and watch now and she is being interviewed about her assault weapon ban legislation and is clearly talking about those weapons as that’s what the discussion was about. The lie is in the OP

You want to ban one firearm, you will want more later. She wants to ban semi-automatics since handguns back in the '80s was the evil firearm what will stop them from banning revolvers?
So dude go **** yourself trying to defend that ****.

im tired of the slippery slope arguments... fear them all you want thats fine but don’t lie about what people are actually saying

 

[MaryL]

Where are the lying liberals that claim otherwise?

https://vm.tiktok.com/CDGGdn/

I despise guns. My major concern isn't firearms or the second amendment. But in this issue or any other, I am seeing the lefty socialist "creep" in government to the point OUR government is becoming invasive and dictatorial and is slowly becoming our enemy.