Examples of why you can't tust Liberals with "reasonable" gun control

[S.J.]

[

Of course it won't happen. The gun manufacturers, with the assistance of the NRA, long ago let the genie out of the bottle.

The "genie" was let out of the bottle long before there was a NRA and most firearms were imported from abroad. In fact it was the Founding Fathers of the United States of America that determined that the people have the right to keep and bear arms because it was "necessary for the security of a free State". Go read the Bill of Rights.

You misunderstand what I am talking about. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that there were 80 million privately owned guns in the U.S. That number today is estimated to be at least 300 million. What? Do you think people suddenly woke up one morning and thought "damn, the Constitution allows me to own a gun. I think I'll buy one".

No, they woke up one morning and thought "Damn, this president is doing everything he can to strip American citizens of their rights under the Constitution. I'd better get prepared to defend my freedom".

 

[orogenicman]

Gee, using a gun to prevent a shooting. Only a right wingnut could come up with that one. Congratulations.

So President Shithead's Secret Service do not really need guns because the guns are not needed to prevent anybody from shooting the idiot? Interesting concept.

Only an anti gun nut Moon Bat would not understand the concept of having the means to defend yourself.

The primary purpose of carrying a gun is to prevent a shooting. Oro is just a nutjob.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. Full stop. End of story.

 

[orogenicman]

[

Of course it won't happen. The gun manufacturers, with the assistance of the NRA, long ago let the genie out of the bottle.

The "genie" was let out of the bottle long before there was a NRA and most firearms were imported from abroad. In fact it was the Founding Fathers of the United States of America that determined that the people have the right to keep and bear arms because it was "necessary for the security of a free State". Go read the Bill of Rights.

You misunderstand what I am talking about. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that there were 80 million privately owned guns in the U.S. That number today is estimated to be at least 300 million. What? Do you think people suddenly woke up one morning and thought "damn, the Constitution allows me to own a gun. I think I'll buy one".

No, they woke up one morning and thought "Damn, this president is doing everything he can to strip American citizens of their rights under the Constitution. I'd better get prepared to defend my freedom".

Gee, if that were the case, the uptick in guns wouldn't have begun LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee, using a gun to prevent a shooting. Only a right wingnut could come up with that one. Congratulations.

So President Shithead's Secret Service do not really need guns because the guns are not needed to prevent anybody from shooting the idiot? Interesting concept.

Only an anti gun nut Moon Bat would not understand the concept of having the means to defend yourself.

The primary purpose of carrying a gun is to prevent a shooting. Oro is just a nutjob.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. Full stop. End of story.

Wrong.
Guns serve lots of difference purposes. Some are dedicated sport guns, like trap shotguns and benchrest rifles. Others are meant for self-defense.
Full stop.
You are stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

[

Of course it won't happen. The gun manufacturers, with the assistance of the NRA, long ago let the genie out of the bottle.

The "genie" was let out of the bottle long before there was a NRA and most firearms were imported from abroad. In fact it was the Founding Fathers of the United States of America that determined that the people have the right to keep and bear arms because it was "necessary for the security of a free State". Go read the Bill of Rights.

You misunderstand what I am talking about. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that there were 80 million privately owned guns in the U.S. That number today is estimated to be at least 300 million. What? Do you think people suddenly woke up one morning and thought "damn, the Constitution allows me to own a gun. I think I'll buy one".

No, they woke up one morning and thought "Damn, this president is doing everything he can to strip American citizens of their rights under the Constitution. I'd better get prepared to defend my freedom".

Gee, if that were the case, the uptick in guns wouldn't have begun LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT.

The big surge came right after Obama won the first election.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?

 

[orogenicman]

Gee, using a gun to prevent a shooting. Only a right wingnut could come up with that one. Congratulations.

So President Shithead's Secret Service do not really need guns because the guns are not needed to prevent anybody from shooting the idiot? Interesting concept.

Only an anti gun nut Moon Bat would not understand the concept of having the means to defend yourself.

The primary purpose of carrying a gun is to prevent a shooting. Oro is just a nutjob.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. Full stop. End of story.

Wrong.
Guns serve lots of difference purposes. Some are dedicated sport guns, like trap shotguns and benchrest rifles. Others are meant for self-defense.
Full stop.
You are stupid.

For someone who claims to be knowledgeable wrt guns, you don't know much about its history. It was designed from the beginning to today to kill. That is, and always has been, it's original purpose. Whether or not people have found other uses for them isn't germane to the fact that the gun is a weapon, and as a weapon it is designed to kill. Even guns that are designed for other purposes (such as target practice) can and do kill, by design. Full stop. End of story.

 

[orogenicman]

[

Of course it won't happen. The gun manufacturers, with the assistance of the NRA, long ago let the genie out of the bottle.

The "genie" was let out of the bottle long before there was a NRA and most firearms were imported from abroad. In fact it was the Founding Fathers of the United States of America that determined that the people have the right to keep and bear arms because it was "necessary for the security of a free State". Go read the Bill of Rights.

You misunderstand what I am talking about. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that there were 80 million privately owned guns in the U.S. That number today is estimated to be at least 300 million. What? Do you think people suddenly woke up one morning and thought "damn, the Constitution allows me to own a gun. I think I'll buy one".

No, they woke up one morning and thought "Damn, this president is doing everything he can to strip American citizens of their rights under the Constitution. I'd better get prepared to defend my freedom".

Gee, if that were the case, the uptick in guns wouldn't have begun LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT.

The big surge came right after Obama won the first election.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Yes, there was a surge of racist right wing white guys buying guns after Obama's first election. No one doubts this. But the increase has been going on for over 15 years, bubba. But thanks for showing your colors by trying to find yet another thing to blame Obama for.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee, using a gun to prevent a shooting. Only a right wingnut could come up with that one. Congratulations.

So President Shithead's Secret Service do not really need guns because the guns are not needed to prevent anybody from shooting the idiot? Interesting concept.

Only an anti gun nut Moon Bat would not understand the concept of having the means to defend yourself.

The primary purpose of carrying a gun is to prevent a shooting. Oro is just a nutjob.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. Full stop. End of story.

Wrong.
Guns serve lots of difference purposes. Some are dedicated sport guns, like trap shotguns and benchrest rifles. Others are meant for self-defense.
Full stop.
You are stupid.

For someone who claims to be knowledgeable wrt guns, you don't know much about its history. It was designed from the beginning to today to kill. That is, and always has been, it's original purpose. Whether or not people have found other uses for them isn't germane to the fact that the gun is a weapon, and as a weapon it is designed to kill. Even guns that are designed for other purposes (such as target practice) can and do kill, by design. Full stop. End of story.

For someone who thinks he's smart, you're not.
Regardless of purpose, and guns are designed to shoot bullets, not kill, the argument that guns are "designed to kill" appeals to the emotion of people with limited intellect. Like you

 

[The Rabbi]

The "genie" was let out of the bottle long before there was a NRA and most firearms were imported from abroad. In fact it was the Founding Fathers of the United States of America that determined that the people have the right to keep and bear arms because it was "necessary for the security of a free State". Go read the Bill of Rights.

You misunderstand what I am talking about. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that there were 80 million privately owned guns in the U.S. That number today is estimated to be at least 300 million. What? Do you think people suddenly woke up one morning and thought "damn, the Constitution allows me to own a gun. I think I'll buy one".

No, they woke up one morning and thought "Damn, this president is doing everything he can to strip American citizens of their rights under the Constitution. I'd better get prepared to defend my freedom".

Gee, if that were the case, the uptick in guns wouldn't have begun LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT.

The big surge came right after Obama won the first election.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Yes, there was a surge of racist right wing white guys buying guns after Obama's first election. No one doubts this. But the increase has been going on for over 15 years, bubba. But thanks for showing your colors by trying to find yet another thing to blame Obama for.

Blame Obama? Hell I thank him. I made more money due to that moron and his anti gun cronies than I could shake a stick at.

 

[orogenicman]

Imagine no guns or hate:

 

[orogenicman]

You misunderstand what I am talking about. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that there were 80 million privately owned guns in the U.S. That number today is estimated to be at least 300 million. What? Do you think people suddenly woke up one morning and thought "damn, the Constitution allows me to own a gun. I think I'll buy one".

No, they woke up one morning and thought "Damn, this president is doing everything he can to strip American citizens of their rights under the Constitution. I'd better get prepared to defend my freedom".

Gee, if that were the case, the uptick in guns wouldn't have begun LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT.

The big surge came right after Obama won the first election.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Yes, there was a surge of racist right wing white guys buying guns after Obama's first election. No one doubts this. But the increase has been going on for over 15 years, bubba. But thanks for showing your colors by trying to find yet another thing to blame Obama for.

Blame Obama? Hell I thank him. I made more money due to that moron and his anti gun cronies than I could shake a stick at.

Yes, I am quite sure many people died so you could make money off our President. Congratulations, prick.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they woke up one morning and thought "Damn, this president is doing everything he can to strip American citizens of their rights under the Constitution. I'd better get prepared to defend my freedom".

Gee, if that were the case, the uptick in guns wouldn't have begun LONG BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT.

The big surge came right after Obama won the first election.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Yes, there was a surge of racist right wing white guys buying guns after Obama's first election. No one doubts this. But the increase has been going on for over 15 years, bubba. But thanks for showing your colors by trying to find yet another thing to blame Obama for.

Blame Obama? Hell I thank him. I made more money due to that moron and his anti gun cronies than I could shake a stick at.

Yes, I am quite sure many people died so you could make money off our President. Congratulations, prick.

That didnt even make any sense.
You dont make sense.
You make nonsense.
And Ilm done with your stupidity.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.

And yet some here apparently are.

Name them. Provide evidence.

Oh please, USMB is full of such people. Surely you have read their posts.

You're lying now. If there were so many, you would have no problem citing a few examples.

Stop lying, Leftists!

If you haven't noticed the anarchists posting here, that's your problem, not mine. The fact of the matter is that anyone who is so paranoid about where they live that they have to arm themselves for protection is probably not living in a great place.

I also missed the underwear gnomes that passed through. You're an idiot if you think you can blame us for not seeing figments of your imagination.

 

[FA_Q2]

The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..

The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.

It continues to take a toll primarily of black and Mexican gangster lives. When has Obama ever seriously addressed the problem in Chicago, his old riding? He doesn't give a damn about black gangsters killing one another, nor do the democrats. They take the same attitude as the Mexican government regarding the cartel war along our southern border that's claimed at least 70,000 lives in six years: "Let them kill each, they're drug cartel criminals. They don't matter."

Oh, you mean where Chicago has cut its gun violence death rate by more than half since 1994?

As for Mexico, are you suggesting that we invade Mexico to rid it of its cartels? Good luck with that.

'gun violence death rate' is a false and pointless stat. I dont care how you die - gun hammer or knife - you are just as dead. Does banning guns decrease homicides:

Doesn't look like it does anything. I will note that your chart does not mention anything at all about the fact that the 90 were VERY violent and the entire nation has been on a down trend.

We don't know if banning all guns would significantly reduce the homicide rate because as a nation we've never tried it. But I'd bet the bank that it would.

Of course you would. You are also betting without a single piece of evedence or fact to back you up.

The reality is that we have TONS of data on gun bans as they have happened in many places across the globe. They have failed across the globe as well. Like in England:

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.

That assertion is not backed up by facts.

The fist problem that you have failed to address (and has been pointed out many times) is that the law is completely unenforceable. Tell me, how is a law that CANNOT BE ENFORCED supposed to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns?

Second, there is no data showing that further gun control measures will do squat to reduce crime or homicides. What is the ultimate goal here? If it is safety then gun control falls flat on its face.

The ultimate goal of any gun control measure must be to reduce crime. This is most easily measured in homicides as that is the most prevalent target of gun control:

England outright banned guns and the effect on homicides? Zero. That is the base problem that you have with gun control laws - if you are willing to commit homicide or any other major offense then the extra law that says you cant have a gun is utterly meaningless - period. This has flushed out a myriad of places all across the globe as well as here. All your assertions are NOT backed up by any hard data.

And England is moving for more restrictive laws - if it doesn't work we can always try more right? That is exactly what gun control advocates want here. We have a shit ton of gun control laws on the books and all you can come up with is more that is not effective in the first place.

If outright banning does nothing, what makes you think that background checks that are completely unenforceable will be effective?

Go ahead and bet the bank but I have to warn you that it is a sure fire loss.

 

[FA_Q2]

[

Of course it won't happen. The gun manufacturers, with the assistance of the NRA, long ago let the genie out of the bottle.

The "genie" was let out of the bottle long before there was a NRA and most firearms were imported from abroad. In fact it was the Founding Fathers of the United States of America that determined that the people have the right to keep and bear arms because it was "necessary for the security of a free State". Go read the Bill of Rights.

You misunderstand what I am talking about. Fifteen years ago, it was estimated that there were 80 million privately owned guns in the U.S. That number today is estimated to be at least 300 million. What? Do you think people suddenly woke up one morning and thought "damn, the Constitution allows me to own a gun. I think I'll buy one".

And what has the homicide rate done in those years?

Those pesky facts again.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Liberals/Progressives have murdered 150 million people in the past 98 years. Is there a better reason to own guns?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is a great example of your Moon Bat ignorance.

We teach safe and responsible handling of firearms. For instance, when I teach my "Women on Target" class about 70% of it is safety. The first thing I tell them in the class is if they have children at home keep the firearm locked up and unloaded.

Of course anti gun nut Moon Bats like you would rather have the women be victims than have the ability to protect themselves.

Do you also teach them how to shoot the gun? If so, then you teach them how to kill.

That's precisely the point, dipshit. They need to know how to kill an attacker. Just like police are trained to kill.

Why do they need to know how to kill anyone? Is there not enough killing in this world? Perhaps if people were taught conflict resolution without killing, the world would be a better place.

Wanker.
Why dont you try conflict resolution with someoen trying to kill you, asshole? You're just not getting this.

Most aggressive conflicts don't, in fact, end on someone's death. YOU are not getting this.

neither do most conflicts with a weapon. Very few instance of gun defensive use actually require a shot fired.

The CDC even found that defensive weapon use DECREASED the likelihood of injury.

 

[orogenicman]

The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.

It continues to take a toll primarily of black and Mexican gangster lives. When has Obama ever seriously addressed the problem in Chicago, his old riding? He doesn't give a damn about black gangsters killing one another, nor do the democrats. They take the same attitude as the Mexican government regarding the cartel war along our southern border that's claimed at least 70,000 lives in six years: "Let them kill each, they're drug cartel criminals. They don't matter."

Oh, you mean where Chicago has cut its gun violence death rate by more than half since 1994?

As for Mexico, are you suggesting that we invade Mexico to rid it of its cartels? Good luck with that.

'gun violence death rate' is a false and pointless stat. I dont care how you die - gun hammer or knife - you are just as dead. Does banning guns decrease homicides:

Doesn't look like it does anything. I will note that your chart does not mention anything at all about the fact that the 90 were VERY violent and the entire nation has been on a down trend.

We don't know if banning all guns would significantly reduce the homicide rate because as a nation we've never tried it. But I'd bet the bank that it would.

Of course you would. You are also betting without a single piece of evedence or fact to back you up.

The reality is that we have TONS of data on gun bans as they have happened in many places across the globe. They have failed across the globe as well. Like in England:

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.

That assertion is not backed up by facts.

The fist problem that you have failed to address (and has been pointed out many times) is that the law is completely unenforceable. Tell me, how is a law that CANNOT BE ENFORCED supposed to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns?

Second, there is no data showing that further gun control measures will do squat to reduce crime or homicides. What is the ultimate goal here? If it is safety then gun control falls flat on its face.

The ultimate goal of any gun control measure must be to reduce crime. This is most easily measured in homicides as that is the most prevalent target of gun control:

England outright banned guns and the effect on homicides? Zero. That is the base problem that you have with gun control laws - if you are willing to commit homicide or any other major offense then the extra law that says you cant have a gun is utterly meaningless - period. This has flushed out a myriad of places all across the globe as well as here. All your assertions are NOT backed up by any hard data.

And England is moving for more restrictive laws - if it doesn't work we can always try more right? That is exactly what gun control advocates want here. We have a shit ton of gun control laws on the books and all you can come up with is more that is not effective in the first place.

If outright banning does nothing, what makes you think that background checks that are completely unenforceable will be effective?

Go ahead and bet the bank but I have to warn you that it is a sure fire loss.

Speaking of guns in UK:

BBC News - Gun control and ownership laws in the UK

BBC News - Analysis UK gun crime figures

 

[FA_Q2]

And? You didnt make a point. One shows that the law is ineffective and the other is a misnomer. Anything beginning with 'gun' crime is filtering data to get desired results. I dont care how many people are killed with a gun. I care how many people are killed PERIOD. If the killer decides to use a hammer, you are no less dead.

The overall crime rates show that weapon bans simply do not have an effect on homicide. What then is the goal of gun control? Less gun deaths but more deaths with other means? That seems to be an asinine goal.

 

[orogenicman]

And? You didnt make a point. One shows that the law is ineffective and the other is a misnomer. Anything beginning with 'gun' crime is filtering data to get desired results. I dont care how many people are killed with a gun. I care how many people are killed PERIOD. If the killer decides to use a hammer, you are no less dead.

The overall crime rates show that weapon bans simply do not have an effect on homicide. What then is the goal of gun control? Less gun deaths but more deaths with other means? That seems to be an asinine goal.

What did you expect me to search for, Elmo gets a blow job? We are talking about gun related deaths in the UK, are we not. Perhaps you should reread the articles at the links.