Do you notice how RWs never establish a line on their 2nd amendment rights?

[Auld Phart]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

Not one example of an NRA supported gun control measure.

Q. Do they enable domestic and foreign terrorists

A. YES!

Q. Do they enable domestic and foreign terrorists

no

but no one will ever be able to convince anyone on the left of that

 

[hazlnut]

No one on page one answered the question?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[jc456]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

Not one example of an NRA supported gun control measure.

Q. Do they enable domestic and foreign terrorists

A. YES!

how?

 

[jc456]

No one on page one answered the question?

Where do you draw the line?

the 2nd amendment. hmmmm what a goof you are.

 

[Spare_change]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

What you qualify as a "safe and sane gun policy", I consider an intrusion on my individual rights. Just cuz you say it, don't make it so.

 

[2aguy]

Just saw this article, and I'm seriously surprised that HuffPo posted it.

I Have A Mental Illness And A Gun License. Here's What I Think Of Gun Reform. | HuffPost

Why are you, "seriously surprised that HuffPo posted it."

It is a well balanced and honest article, something we would be surprised if one were posted by Breitbart or Alex Jones.

No....here is a well balanced argument.....

Opinion | I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

 

[2aguy]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

Not one example of an NRA supported gun control measure.

Q. Do they enable domestic and foreign terrorists

A. YES!

No...they don't....the democrats support criminals murdering people.....they actually do this....

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds

 

[2aguy]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

Yeah...now that is a lie on all topics right there....name the suit, give the reason they oppose the gun control extremism....you don't get to say "they oppose every effort," and then just move on....

You know that every time you list a gun control law you want it gets shown to be stupid...that is why you have stopped listing the specifics....because once you show a specific one, it is easy to see it is dumb and doesn't do anything you say it will do....and so you smear and lie...

They support keeping violent criminals in jail.....and I listed that twice now....here is a 3rd time....

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds

 

[2aguy]

No one on page one answered the question?

Where do you draw the line?

I answered it.....

American citizens can own, and carry the same rifles and pistols that American police and soldiers do.

There.

 

[2aguy]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

What you qualify as a "safe and sane gun policy", I consider an intrusion on my individual rights. Just cuz you say it, don't make it so.

Notice...he won't list the gun control measures....he got tired of people pointing out the facts about the laws he wants...because they do not stop criminals or mass shooters....so now he just throws out that same old, stupid line about the NRA opposing everything, and then moves on ..............because each thing he wants...is stupid and does nothing...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

Yeah...now that is a lie on all topics right there....name the suit, give the reason they oppose the gun control extremism....you don't get to say "they oppose every effort," and then just move on....

You know that every time you list a gun control law you want it gets shown to be stupid...that is why you have stopped listing the specifics....because once you show a specific one, it is easy to see it is dumb and doesn't do anything you say it will do....and so you smear and lie...

They support keeping violent criminals in jail.....and I listed that twice now....here is a 3rd time....

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds

Your obsession with firearms is pathological, a fetish for guns needs to be ruled out by a competent shrink.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

What you qualify as a "safe and sane gun policy", I consider an intrusion on my individual rights. Just cuz you say it, don't make it so.

How intruded on their individual rights were the families of the 58 victims? I'd put those killed and thier right to live as a greater intrusion; that you don't is telling.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

RWs have a child-like fantasy when it comes to guns. They delude themselves into dreaming of one day being an armed hero. This can range from taking down a home intruder to shooting fascist thugs trying to steal their liberty! The truth of the matter is that when it comes to pulling the trigger, many wouid puss out in such situations. The idea of it just gives them the feels so they insist on no gun control whatsoever.

Of course, what question they can’t answer is where they draw the line.

Do they want ANYONE to be able to carry fully automatic weapons anywhere, anytime? If that hypothetical is answered as a “no”, then what does that say about their 2nd amendment rights? It’s fallacious thinking, but these are republicans afterall.

There is no line to be drawn. We can have any gun we want according to the Constitution. You're the only ones that want a line.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How intruded on their individual rights were the families of the 58 victims? I'd put those killed and thier right to live as a greater intrusion; that you don't is telling.

So, because this asshole in Vegas intruded on their rights, you want to intrude on OUR rights.


How can we apply this tortured principle to other rights?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

What you qualify as a "safe and sane gun policy", I consider an intrusion on my individual rights. Just cuz you say it, don't make it so.

How intruded on their individual rights were the families of the 58 victims? I'd put those killed and thier right to live as a greater intrusion; that you don't is telling.

All 58 of those and their families have the same right to arm themselves. How do create a right not to be a victim of a crime?

 

[danielpalos]

My 13 year old son cannot go into a 7-11 and buy a fully automatic M-60 machine gun.

There is gun control.

What liberals want is a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Well, knock yourselves out....you just need 2/3 of Congress and 75% of state legislatures to approve of the bill and you guys got your wish....no more 2nd amendment.

Even Diane Feinstein stated that all the laws in place could not have stopped the Las Vegas shooter. This one is truly a super strange one until someone can figure out his motive.

A free society has inherent risks.

Almost all gun owners are responsible, just like most people who drink alcohol don't drive drunk and kill people.

Some do.

Consider Drunk Driving and the impact of MADD when a minority of mother's said "'Enough!"

The NRA enables the few who are criminals to easily obtain a firearm and ammo. And those emotionally attached to their guns enable them too. Either you and others who support a 2nd A. as an absolute had better begin to find a means to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, for more and more citizens will say "Enough!".

We already do.....there are background checks at gun stores, and if a you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail....if you are a felon caught with a gun, you go to jail....

Of course....stopping criminals isn't the point...taking guns away from the people who don't use them to commit crimes is the point....

Problem is liberals block every law to make gun crime have a mandatory jail sentence, and they want to let people OUT of prisons. WTF is wrong with them?

You cannot incarcerate more people and lower taxes.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You cannot incarcerate more people and lower taxes

You can if you end the war on drugs and release all non-violent offenders.

 

[miketx]

Even Diane Feinstein stated that all the laws in place could not have stopped the Las Vegas shooter. This one is truly a super strange one until someone can figure out his motive.

A free society has inherent risks.

Almost all gun owners are responsible, just like most people who drink alcohol don't drive drunk and kill people.

Some do.

Consider Drunk Driving and the impact of MADD when a minority of mother's said "'Enough!"

The NRA enables the few who are criminals to easily obtain a firearm and ammo. And those emotionally attached to their guns enable them too. Either you and others who support a 2nd A. as an absolute had better begin to find a means to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, for more and more citizens will say "Enough!".

We already do.....there are background checks at gun stores, and if a you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail....if you are a felon caught with a gun, you go to jail....

Of course....stopping criminals isn't the point...taking guns away from the people who don't use them to commit crimes is the point....

Problem is liberals block every law to make gun crime have a mandatory jail sentence, and they want to let people OUT of prisons. WTF is wrong with them?

You cannot incarcerate more people and lower taxes.

no one said to.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your obsession with firearms is pathological, a fetish for guns needs to be ruled out by a competent shrink

Just because I have sex with my guns does not mean I am mentally ill, you bigot!!!

Respect my sexual preference!

 

[miketx]

Not one thoughtful response by the gun lovers to this post:

"The NRA opposes every effort by anyone who wants a safe and sane gun policy. They fund suits to sue cities and counties who want to place any & all restrictions on guns and ammo, and scapegoat the mentally ill with no apparent concern for their rights - typical of callous conservatives like you."

One example is all they need to offer where the NRA supported gun control measures.

What you qualify as a "safe and sane gun policy", I consider an intrusion on my individual rights. Just cuz you say it, don't make it so.

How intruded on their individual rights were the families of the 58 victims? I'd put those killed and thier right to live as a greater intrusion; that you don't is telling.

What's telling is your fascist bent to disarm us. Never going to happen.