Gun Control question for liberals?

[Crepitus]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

I want you to replace any other right we have in place of gun ownership & see if you support that logic. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, not a privilege...

None of the other rights can accidentally kill someone if mishandled or be used to kill a room full of Innocents in a matter of minutes. You can babble and whine about rights all day long but you cannot ignore fact that they come with responsibilities.

Of course they come with responsibilities but it’s still a right not a privilege. Voting comes with responsibilities too. So does free speech. Everything comes with a responsibility. But guess what, you are confusing criminal activity with engaging in a constitutional right.

No, I'm not.

 

[2aguy]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

While I would be willing to accept competency testing and licensing even, it would have to be state of local.
The Constitution is clear there is no federal jurisdiction at all over any weapons.

Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional...as is any fee for the exercise of a Right.....

So slander and libel laws are unConstitutional?

I thought you claimed to be a "scholar". Did you mean "wanker"?

No, dipshit..... you keep making things up about me......do you really need to mix booze with your meds? It isn't helping you.

Slander and Libel violate the Rights of others.....that is why there is a defined punishment for doing it......but you can say anything you want until you violate the Rights of others.....then you break the law.

You asshats want to punish people who do not use their guns for crime.....for simply owning and carrying guns.

 

[Pogo]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

 

[rightwinger]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

And more.....

How dangerous people get their guns in America



The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police. A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.

Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtained them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.

The supply chain of guns to crime
While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals.

That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.

All in the family
So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member.

For example, Syed Rizwan Farook – one of the shooters in San Bernardino – relied on a friend to get several of the rifles and pistols he used because Farook doubted that he could pass a background check. That a friend and neighbor was the source is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.

Also important are "street" sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks play an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources to penetrate the social networks of gun offenders.

More justification for gun registration and recording of all sales

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

 

[Pogo]

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

While I would be willing to accept competency testing and licensing even, it would have to be state of local.
The Constitution is clear there is no federal jurisdiction at all over any weapons.

Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional...as is any fee for the exercise of a Right.....

So slander and libel laws are unConstitutional?

I thought you claimed to be a "scholar". Did you mean "wanker"?

No, dipshit..... you keep making things up about me......do you really need to mix booze with your meds? It isn't helping you.

Slander and Libel violate the Rights of others.....that is why there is a defined punishment for doing it......but you can say anything you want until you violate the Rights of others.....then you break the law.

But you just said, and I quote,

"Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional".

It's SITTING RIGHT THERE ABOVE in the quote nest. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Does "any" mean "any" or does it mean "until I change it in the next post"?

Hm?

You asshats want to punish people who do not use their guns for crime.....for simply owning and carrying guns.

Oh I do huh.

---------------------------------- Link?

 

[2aguy]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

The entire south kept freed Blacks from voting using literacy tests....you asshat....

Literacy test - Wikipedia

From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.

 

[2aguy]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

Moron...

John Hoffman....democrat Governor of New York..

John T. Hoffman - Wikipedia

 

[Crepitus]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

Lmao! The onus is on the criminal? Really?

 

[BULLDOG]

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's the same klown who, when he was here years ago, came on here demanding I "get the **** out of HIS state".

Yup. Bigreb wants to be a combination of Hulk hogan and John Wayne, but he's more like Mr Limpet. He's lots of fun.

Ah, I've barely met him and already classified him as "blow hard wannabe, no useful contributions expected, unworthy of response"

Big reb left before after some false claims about his made up military background. He wants to be seen as a bad ass, even if he never got past the cub scouts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

No apology required. I stated an opinion based on tenor. Here’s another one on what I perceive from Conservative tenor: Conservatives LIKE private citizens owning guns. Their are going to be exceptions in both cases. I based my opinion on my observations. It’s an opinion; I did not state an absolute.

Your thread premise is a lie, ridiculous sophistry devoid of fact and merit.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

And if you never expect it and it happens what do you do?

And FYI it does happen.

I was set upon by 3 thugs when I was 18 when I was doing nothing but walking home after a double shift and was left on the street in the dead of winter with 3 cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a lacerated spleen and a concussion.

I still have the scar under my left eye to remind me that there is real violence in this world

Yeah and Mikey was beat up by three Mexicans and odius was beat up by three black guys and and and and and.........

All those stories sound suspiciously similar.....

Over 1 million serious and violent crimes succeed every single year.
There are likely millions more that simply fail or are not reported for some reason.
Each and every person has an average risk of being victim of 2.5 of these serious and violent crimes in their lifetime.
The stat is that 1 of 5 women are rape victims in their life.
If you do not think that all people should not be armed all the time, you are wrong.

Right. The solution to America being the most violent industrialized nation on earth is more guns. Although, given the fact that we are also the most armed country in the world would imply that is not true.

 

[Pogo]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

Moron...

John Hoffman....democrat Governor of New York..

John T. Hoffman - Wikipedia

Governors don't draft legislation, moron. Legislatures do.
And --- they did.

Even so, Hoffman put the committee together to deal with the Constitutionallity of the 1872 law but he was not still Governor in 1874 when it was tweaked to keep blacks down. That would be John Adams Dix.

Guess what political party Dix was with.

You lose again.

 

[2aguy]

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

While I would be willing to accept competency testing and licensing even, it would have to be state of local.
The Constitution is clear there is no federal jurisdiction at all over any weapons.

Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional...as is any fee for the exercise of a Right.....

So slander and libel laws are unConstitutional?

I thought you claimed to be a "scholar". Did you mean "wanker"?

No, dipshit..... you keep making things up about me......do you really need to mix booze with your meds? It isn't helping you.

Slander and Libel violate the Rights of others.....that is why there is a defined punishment for doing it......but you can say anything you want until you violate the Rights of others.....then you break the law.

But you just said, and I quote,

"Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional".

It's SITTING RIGHT THERE ABOVE in the quote nest. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Does "any" mean "any" or does it mean "until I change it in the next post"?

Hm?

You asshats want to punish people who do not use their guns for crime.....for simply owning and carrying guns.

Oh I do huh.

---------------------------------- Link?

Any test before the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....you asshat.

What you seek to do is "prior restraint" against gun ownership....which is what any training requirement does.....you moron.

As with the First Amendment, so with the 2nd....you moron.

Prior Restraint

In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens. .

Overview (Under Construction)
Prior restraint typically happens in a few ways. It may be a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking. Prior restraint can also be a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. There is a third way--discussed below--in which the government outright prohibits a certain type of speech. Courts typically disfavor prior restraint and often find it to be unconstitutional.

 

[Defiant1]

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

Lmao! The onus is on the criminal? Really?

View attachment 268347

Do you think it is somehow my responsibility if someone else decides to break the law?

You probably do.
Are you from one of those states where it's a crime to leave the keys in your car?

Are you a believer in it takes a village?

 

[2aguy]

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

And if you never expect it and it happens what do you do?

And FYI it does happen.

I was set upon by 3 thugs when I was 18 when I was doing nothing but walking home after a double shift and was left on the street in the dead of winter with 3 cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a lacerated spleen and a concussion.

I still have the scar under my left eye to remind me that there is real violence in this world

Yeah and Mikey was beat up by three Mexicans and odius was beat up by three black guys and and and and and.........

All those stories sound suspiciously similar.....

Over 1 million serious and violent crimes succeed every single year.
There are likely millions more that simply fail or are not reported for some reason.
Each and every person has an average risk of being victim of 2.5 of these serious and violent crimes in their lifetime.
The stat is that 1 of 5 women are rape victims in their life.
If you do not think that all people should not be armed all the time, you are wrong.

Right. The solution to America being the most violent industrialized nation on earth is more guns. Although, given the fact that we are also the most armed country in the world would imply that is not true.

And you can't explain how it is that as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%......which shows that more guns does not equal more gun crime.

Our gun crime rate went down 75% as more Americans own and carry guns....which shows that more guns does not equal more gun crime...

You moron...are you this stupid in real life, or only when you post..

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

Moron...

John Hoffman....democrat Governor of New York..

John T. Hoffman - Wikipedia

Governors don't draft legislation, moron. Legislatures do.
And --- they did.

They sign it shithead.......and they don't get elected to the office without a lot of democrats voting for them.....shithead.

 

[Pogo]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

The entire south kept freed Blacks from voting using literacy tests....you asshat....

Literacy test - Wikipedia

From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.

>> The literacy test was a device to restrict the total number of immigrants while not offending the large element of ethnic voters. The "old" immigration (British, Irish, German, Scandinavian) had fallen off and was replaced by a "new" immigration from Italy, Russia and other points in Southern and eastern Europe. The "old" immigrants were voters and strongly approved of restricting the "new" immigrants. All groups of American voters strongly opposed Chinese and Asian immigration. The 1896 Republican platform called for a literacy test.[10]

.... In 1906, the House Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon, a conservative Republican, worked aggressively to defeat a proposed literacy test for immigrants. A product of the western frontier, Cannon felt that moral probity was the only acceptable test for the quality of an immigrant. He worked with Secretary of State Elihu Root and President Theodore Roosevelt to set up the "Dillingham Commission," a blue ribbon body of experts that produced a 41-volume study of immigration. The Commission recommended a literacy test and the possibility of annual quotas.[13] Presidents Cleveland and Taft vetoed literacy tests in 1897 and 1913. President Wilson did the same in 1915 and 1917, but the test was passed over Wilson's second veto.[14] <<​

That's from YOUR OWN LINK, Dumbass.

 

[2aguy]

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

And if you never expect it and it happens what do you do?

And FYI it does happen.

I was set upon by 3 thugs when I was 18 when I was doing nothing but walking home after a double shift and was left on the street in the dead of winter with 3 cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a lacerated spleen and a concussion.

I still have the scar under my left eye to remind me that there is real violence in this world

Yeah and Mikey was beat up by three Mexicans and odius was beat up by three black guys and and and and and.........

All those stories sound suspiciously similar.....

Over 1 million serious and violent crimes succeed every single year.
There are likely millions more that simply fail or are not reported for some reason.
Each and every person has an average risk of being victim of 2.5 of these serious and violent crimes in their lifetime.
The stat is that 1 of 5 women are rape victims in their life.
If you do not think that all people should not be armed all the time, you are wrong.

Right. The solution to America being the most violent industrialized nation on earth is more guns. Although, given the fact that we are also the most armed country in the world would imply that is not true.

We aren't the most violent industrialized nation, moron, Britain is....they are more violent than we are...

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

We thought Bier’s points were reasonable, so we tried to replicate his approach. We looked at the raw violent crime numbers for each country, using statistics for England and Wales for 2012 and for the United States for 2011, in a way that sought to compare apples to apples. (We should note that the United Kingdom includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the numbers in the meme appear to be based only on crime in England and Wales, which are calculated separately.)

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

 

[2aguy]

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

The entire south kept freed Blacks from voting using literacy tests....you asshat....

Literacy test - Wikipedia

From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.

>> The literacy test was a device to restrict the total number of immigrants while not offending the large element of ethnic voters. The "old" immigration (British, Irish, German, Scandinavian) had fallen off and was replaced by a "new" immigration from Italy, Russia and other points in Southern and eastern Europe. The "old" immigrants were voters and strongly approved of restricting the "new" immigrants. All groups of American voters strongly opposed Chinese and Asian immigration. The 1896 Republican platform called for a literacy test.[10]

.... In 1906, the House Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon, a conservative Republican, worked aggressively to defeat a proposed literacy test for immigrants. A product of the western frontier, Cannon felt that moral probity was the only acceptable test for the quality of an immigrant. He worked with Secretary of State Elihu Root and President Theodore Roosevelt to set up the "Dillingham Commission," a blue ribbon body of experts that produced a 41-volume study of immigration. The Commission recommended a literacy test and the possibility of annual quotas.[13] Presidents Cleveland and Taft vetoed literacy tests in 1897 and 1913. President Wilson did the same in 1915 and 1917, but the test was passed over Wilson's second veto.[14] <<​

That's from YOUR OWN LINK, Dumbass.

And, shitstain.....the democrats in the South kept the literacy test till the Civil Rights act of 1965.....