Funny thing about those who want more gun control

[M14 Shooter]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

I tremble at such brilliant, deductive reasoning.... I'm getting goose bumps all over.....

Honey, the law-abiding citizens are not the ones we're worried about. That's why we call them law-abiding. It's the mentally ill, the psychopaths and the down-n-dirty criminals we want screened.

Case in point: I wish there had been more background info in Michael Dunn's trial down in Florida just this last week. I bet that man has a past that would put the Duh-Duh-Duck Dynasty Dickhead to shame.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, having weapons that can fire 30 or more rounds in under 10 seconds easily available to the crazies just makes such good sense.

 

[Esmeralda]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

I tremble at such brilliant, deductive reasoning.... I'm getting goose bumps all over.....

Honey, the law-abiding citizens are not the ones we're worried about. That's why we call them law-abiding. It's the mentally ill, the psychopaths and the down-n-dirty criminals we want screened.

Case in point: I wish there had been more background info in Michael Dunn's trial down in Florida just this last week. I bet that man has a past that would put the Duh-Duh-Duck Dynasty Dickhead to shame.

Including people like Michael Dunn: law abiding citizen until he blows away some innocent, unarmed person.

 

[LibertyLemming]

the funny thing is that guns are required to take guns away from people so they aren't really anti gun lol?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Honey, the law-abiding citizens are not the ones we're worried about. That's why we call them law-abiding. It's the mentally ill, the psychopaths and the down-n-dirty criminals we want screened.

Oh, isn't that nice. Now the gun-grabbers only want the bad guys screened.

That's like a stockbroker saying he only wants to buy the stocks that will go up.

But while mouthing these sweet platitudes, the gun-grabbers go right on pushing for legislation that restricts ALL gun owners, calling for registration for ALL purchases (and even purchases made years ago), magazine restrictions that apply to EVERYBODY, waiting periods to apply to EVERYBODY (ncluding people who already own other guns and whom a waiting period will not prevent from picking up a gun immediately and blowing somebody away in a fit of rage), etc. etc.

Little NTPP, are you starting to realize why normal Americans don't believe your cute protests and speeches any more?

 

[Clementine]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

"They" give the excuse that the police will protect you. Hmmm, how's that going for others? Lots of victims.

"They" claim that gun control will take guns out of the hands of criminals. Even if they were able to magically do that eventually, guns will still be taken from the law-abiding first.

Should we all go unarmed for 10, 20 or 30 years before law enforcement catches up with some of the criminals? Meanwhile, every rapist, murderer and home invader will have a field day knowing fewer people are capable of self-defense.

I get tired of liberals defending their stance and constantly claiming they aren't coming for our guns, then turn around and say we really have no right to bear arms to begin with. I see both those things uttered all the time, so it's clear they are lying when they say no one is going to take our guns away. They mean no one will take them until they can figure out how to do that since they clearly do not believe that citizens should be armed in the first place.

Gun control in Chicago didn't work. It's the same story everywhere. Those vile, thick headed gang members and other criminals just don't fucking get it. They aren't supposed to be killing people with stolen or illegally purchased guns, but they keep doing it. And it makes the world that much more dangerous for the rest of us. Call 911, my ass. In the few seconds a person might have to save their own life, I think they might have a better idea than trying to pick up a phone and waiting indefinitely for help to arrive.

Will a crazy person still get a hold of a gun with strict gun laws or even a total ban? Sadly, yes. How many shootings are due to law abiding people as opposed to gangs, drug dealers and others who will always have access to guns? They aren't supposed to have guns, but honestly, it seems they not only have plenty, but have the ones with serious firing power.

How many people were murdered here and in Mexico with the weapons the Obama administration allowed to land up in the hands of criminals through Fast and Furious? Seems our own government is more dangerous than all of the legal gun owners combined.

The police should be going after criminals who have guns now. They should be making more arrests of drug dealers. They should be solving more gang related deaths and arresting gang members. New laws won't speed that up any. If they can't enforce the current laws, how the hell will they enforce even more restrictive laws? Convicted felons shouldn't have guns, but they do and the left is pretending that more laws will somehow make it easier for authorities to catch them. It's insane.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm in favor of treating everyone like a potential criminal. Let's restrict everyone's liberty based on what someone might possibly could maybe someday potentially eventually do. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

Once again, those who seek additional measures need to be compelled to justify such restrictions with objective, documented evidence – something gun rights advocates seem incapable of doing.

Instead, Second Amendment advocates initiate inane exchanges about ‘confiscation’ or ‘overthrowing tyranny,’ casting gun rights advocates in a negative light.

 

[blackhawk]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

 

[Steven_R]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

Once again, those who seek additional measures need to be compelled to justify such restrictions with objective, documented evidence – something gun rights advocates seem incapable of doing.

Instead, Second Amendment advocates initiate inane exchanges about ‘confiscation’ or ‘overthrowing tyranny,’ casting gun rights advocates in a negative light.

Because things like the Battle of Athens TN can't happen here...again...right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

I tremble at such brilliant, deductive reasoning.... I'm getting goose bumps all over.....

Honey, the law-abiding citizens are not the ones we're worried about. That's why we call them law-abiding. It's the mentally ill, the psychopaths and the down-n-dirty criminals we want screened.

Case in point: I wish there had been more background info in Michael Dunn's trial down in Florida just this last week. I bet that man has a past that would put the Duh-Duh-Duck Dynasty Dickhead to shame.

Thank you for doing nothing to negate my point as well as helping to prove than anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, having weapons that can fire 30 or more rounds in under 10 seconds easily available to the crazies just makes such good sense.

Thank you for doing nothing to negate my point as well as helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

Once again, those who seek additional measures need to be compelled to justify such restrictions with objective, documented evidence – something gun rights advocates seem incapable of doing.

Instead, Second Amendment advocates initiate inane exchanges about ‘confiscation’ or ‘overthrowing tyranny,’ casting gun rights advocates in a negative light.

Thank you for doing nothing to negate my point.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, having weapons that can fire 30 or more rounds in under 10 seconds easily available to the crazies just makes such good sense.

Not having it available to the non crazies makes even less sense.
Remind me how many people were killed by such guns last year.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Well, having weapons that can fire 30 or more rounds in under 10 seconds easily available to the crazies just makes such good sense.

It makes perfect sense when we have people like you running around electing gestapo types who would love nothing more to see my kind drop and die. I'll keep my three assault rifles and there is absolutely nothing you will ever be able to do about it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, having weapons that can fire 30 or more rounds in under 10 seconds easily available to the crazies just makes such good sense.

Fully automatic weapons are heavily licensed. Semi automatic weapons are just about every other weapon out there and specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

I tremble at such brilliant, deductive reasoning.... I'm getting goose bumps all over.....

Honey, the law-abiding citizens are not the ones we're worried about. That's why we call them law-abiding. It's the mentally ill, the psychopaths and the down-n-dirty criminals we want screened.

Case in point: I wish there had been more background info in Michael Dunn's trial down in Florida just this last week. I bet that man has a past that would put the Duh-Duh-Duck Dynasty Dickhead to shame.

It is already illegal for the mentally incompetent and criminals from owning possessing or using firearms. Background checks are already mandatory in all sales except person to person, which account for a small fraction of all firearm sales. Unless you can provide us evidence that Dunn illegally obtained his weapon and permit then you are simply lying.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They* argue that gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of thelaw abiding need further restriction, but then reject out of hand the notion that, because gun-related crime is so bad, people have a legiitmate need to arm themselves for self-defense.



* "They" does not mean every single one of these people; it denotes a significant proportion.

Once again, those who seek additional measures need to be compelled to justify such restrictions with objective, documented evidence – something gun rights advocates seem incapable of doing.

Instead, Second Amendment advocates initiate inane exchanges about ‘confiscation’ or ‘overthrowing tyranny,’ casting gun rights advocates in a negative light.

Meanwhile you conveniently IGNORE all the open calls by Politicians and people on this board to BAN ALL firearms, to confiscate them from all law abiding citizens. You are either amazingly stupid or an experienced liar.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Notice how the anti gun crowd does not go after the gun culture in Hollywood. Is there any call to action to get movies and shows to pull back on content that glorify gun violence? The answer is NO b/c many of the 1 % producers and writers are cronyists of The State and if they did not have violence in film to get even richer, they could not write checks to The Democrats.

Go ahead. Take the guns away. With that, ban books and media that glorify gun violence. See what happens. The Elite will be celebrating taking the 2nd Amendment from law abiding citizens while fighting for their 1st Amendment rights.