Diane Feinstein wants to take ALL of your guns

[Slade3200]

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.

Those are semantics which all depend on the circumstances and the situation. Fact remains all of our rights can be regulated in one way or another if it has to do with the public good or safety.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

1. I didn't lie
2. Justify the common-sense gun laws cry
a. Will they stop crimes
b. will they protect anyone
c. will they stop mass shootings
d.will criminals follow those new gun control laws?

3. If you can't justify the common-sense gun control cry's what other purpose can that be for?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

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.

Indeed, sometimes the slippery slope is very real.

There's no legitimate reason why we ever should have compromised, in allowing government to infringe at all on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Foolishly, we have “compromised” many times, in ways that allow the anti-American pieces of shit to nibble away at this right, and which give us nothing at all in return, except for a false illusion of safety. Benjamin Franklin wrote truly, when he wrote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Those are semantics which all depend on the circumstances and the situation. Fact remains all of our rights can be regulated in one way or another if it has to do with the public good or safety.

And you're just making absurd, pathetic excuses for letting our corrupt, out-of-control government walk all over the rights which our ancestors fought and sacrificed to establish, and which the Constitution explicitly affirms and protects. Worthless, compliant, Gillettized cowards such as yourself are the very worst thing that is wrong with this country.

 

[MaryL]

Those are semantics which all depend on the circumstances and the situation. Fact remains all of our rights can be regulated in one way or another if it has to do with the public good or safety.

And you're just making absurd, pathetic excuses for letting our corrupt, out-of-control government walk all over the rights which our ancestors fought and sacrificed to establish, and which the Constitution explicitly affirms and protects. Worthless, compliant, Gillettized cowards such as yourself are the very worst thing that is wrong with this country.

I voted against the Democrat liberals back in 16'. Not Trump so much. So NOW the democrats attempted to overthrow our duly elected president.I am sure if these numb skulls tried hard enough they could actually find legitimate reasons for this little passion play. Trump is almost 4 years into his term, and this subjective JUNK is the best they could do?

 

[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

1. I didn't lie
2. Justify the common-sense gun laws cry
a. Will they stop crimes
b. will they protect anyone
c. will they stop mass shootings
d.will criminals follow those new gun control laws?

3. If you can't justify the common-sense gun control cry's what other purpose can that be for?

The common sense gun laws are there to make it more difficult for mentally ill and high risk individuals to legally obtain lethal weapons. They are also there to make weapons capable of mass destruction harder to obtain. Some will still get weapons and commit crimes. Laws will never prevent all crime. But some may not follow through or they may settle with a knife or a pistol they take from a friend... there isn’t a way to measure prevention. You can believe that nothing is ever prevented by laws that fine. Others believe they do prevent death and destruction which is why they support the laws.

 

[Slade3200]

Those are semantics which all depend on the circumstances and the situation. Fact remains all of our rights can be regulated in one way or another if it has to do with the public good or safety.

And you're just making absurd, pathetic excuses for letting our corrupt, out-of-control government walk all over the rights which our ancestors fought and sacrificed to establish, and which the Constitution explicitly affirms and protects. Worthless, compliant, Gillettized cowards such as yourself are the very worst thing that is wrong with this country.

Haha, chill out man. It’s a new year, try to unwind a bit

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The common sense gun laws are there to make it more difficult for mentally ill and high risk individuals to legally obtain lethal weapons. They are also there to make weapons capable of mass destruction harder to obtain.

Just goes to show that you are gullible and foolish enough to believe the lies that the gun-grabbers have been telling you.

The promotion of gun control laws is, without exception, driven by motives and desires, which, if acted on, would give good people just cause to use their arms against those so acting. Pay attention to those who are promoting these laws, and what other inane and evil crap they promote.

 

[MaryL]

Lets untangle the devious webs that the deep state weaves. International globalist whatever they ARE, lets dismantle them and examine their agenda. They pose as philanthropists, and commit huge amounts of funds to various causes. Immigrants rights, gay rights stuff like that. Their goal? You tell me...

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I've known three people who've been killed with guns. Two suicides and one lady who was killed in a domestic argument. Those people would all be alive today if there wasn't a gun in the house. None of them was a criminal that anyone needed defending from.

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.”,

Actually, you have no idea what was in Kellerman's study. Of the 43 times that a household member was killed, 39 of those were suicides. 0.5 were accidents. the other 3.5 were domestic violence of some sort.

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%.

He did nothing of the sort.

In fact, every study done since Kellerman has validated his findings.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

This evidence has been slow to accumulate because of restrictions placed by Congress on one of the country's biggest injury research funders, the CDC. Since the mid-1990s the agency has been effectively blocked from supporting gun violence research. And the NRA and many gun owners have emphasized a small handful of studies that point the other way.

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

 

[JoeB131]

Just goes to show that you are gullible and foolish enough to believe the lies that the gun-grabbers have been telling you.

The promotion of gun control laws is, without exception, driven by motives and desires, which, if acted on, would give good people just cause to use their arms against those so acting. Pay attention to those who are promoting these laws, and what other inane and evil crap they promote.

Yeah, silly things like reproductive freedom, economic equality, civil rights... all those crazy liberal ideas that make Baby Jesus Cry.

 

[Slade3200]

The common sense gun laws are there to make it more difficult for mentally ill and high risk individuals to legally obtain lethal weapons. They are also there to make weapons capable of mass destruction harder to obtain.

Just goes to show that you are gullible and foolish enough to believe the lies that the gun-grabbers have been telling you.

The promotion of gun control laws is, without exception, driven by motives and desires, which, if acted on, would give good people just cause to use their arms against those so acting. Pay attention to those who are promoting these laws, and what other inane and evil crap they promote.

I’m not believing what people are telling me. I’m just using basic common sense

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just goes to show that you are gullible and foolish enough to believe the lies that the gun-grabbers have been telling you.

I’m not believing what people are telling me. I’m just using basic common sense

 

[Slade3200]

Just goes to show that you are gullible and foolish enough to believe the lies that the gun-grabbers have been telling you.

I’m not believing what people are telling me. I’m just using basic common sense

View attachment 297786

Now we are down to photo responses huh? You child. Ya know, I understand your perspective, I actually respect elements of it. You on the other hand have no understanding of the “other side” you get stuck regurgitating talking points and ignoring healthy discussion and understanding. Try getting off your soapbox every once in a while.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Now we are down to photo responses huh? You child. Ya know, I understand your perspective, I actually respect elements of it. You on the other hand have no understanding of the “other side” you get stuck regurgitating talking points and ignoring healthy discussion and understanding. Try getting off your soapbox every once in a while.

What's to understand?

Your side just wants sane Americans to “compromise” our most essential Constitutional rights away, a little bit at a time. Now matter what my side gives up, your side will always demand more, until there's nothing left.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

1. I didn't lie
2. Justify the common-sense gun laws cry
a. Will they stop crimes
b. will they protect anyone
c. will they stop mass shootings
d.will criminals follow those new gun control laws?

3. If you can't justify the common-sense gun control cry's what other purpose can that be for?

The common sense gun laws are there to make it more difficult for mentally ill and high risk individuals to legally obtain lethal weapons. They are also there to make weapons capable of mass destruction harder to obtain. Some will still get weapons and commit crimes. Laws will never prevent all crime. But some may not follow through or they may settle with a knife or a pistol they take from a friend... there isn’t a way to measure prevention. You can believe that nothing is ever prevented by laws that fine. Others believe they do prevent death and destruction which is why they support the laws.

We already have laws that prevent mentally ill people from having access to firearms.
Remember Sutherland Springs church shooting?
The shooter passed all the required background checks all because the Air Force did not file the shooter's info with
NICS.
So the only purpose for further gun control is to take firearms from law-abiding citizens and the slippery slopes is true.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now we are down to photo responses huh? You child. Ya know, I understand your perspective, I actually respect elements of it. You on the other hand have no understanding of the “other side” you get stuck regurgitating talking points and ignoring healthy discussion and understanding. Try getting off your soapbox every once in a while.

What's to understand?

Your side just wants sane Americans to “compromise” our most essential Constitutional rights away, a little bit at a time. Now matter what my side gives up, your side will always demand more, until there's nothing left.

GUN OWNERS HAVE ALWAYS COMPROMISED
No more

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The common sense gun laws are there to make it more difficult for mentally ill and high risk individuals to legally obtain lethal weapons. They are also there to make weapons capable of mass destruction harder to obtain.

Just goes to show that you are gullible and foolish enough to believe the lies that the gun-grabbers have been telling you.

The promotion of gun control laws is, without exception, driven by motives and desires, which, if acted on, would give good people just cause to use their arms against those so acting. Pay attention to those who are promoting these laws, and what other inane and evil crap they promote.

I’m not believing what people are telling me. I’m just using basic common sense

It's only common sense when you know what the purpose is for more common-sense gun control
TO CONFISCATE GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I've known three people who've been killed with guns. Two suicides and one lady who was killed in a domestic argument. Those people would all be alive today if there wasn't a gun in the house. None of them was a criminal that anyone needed defending from.

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.”,

Actually, you have no idea what was in Kellerman's study. Of the 43 times that a household member was killed, 39 of those were suicides. 0.5 were accidents. the other 3.5 were domestic violence of some sort.

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%.

He did nothing of the sort.

In fact, every study done since Kellerman has validated his findings.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

This evidence has been slow to accumulate because of restrictions placed by Congress on one of the country's biggest injury research funders, the CDC. Since the mid-1990s the agency has been effectively blocked from supporting gun violence research. And the NRA and many gun owners have emphasized a small handful of studies that point the other way.

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Nothing but bullshit.