Gun Control question for liberals?

[Crepitus]

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

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.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

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.

It's not fantasy...

Williams: Second Amendment Exists to Protect Us From Government

Yes, it is a fantasy. You and your redneck buddies would evaporate like spit in a frying pan against any reasonably well trained SWAT team, much less a squad of American infantry.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear LeftofLeft
When I asked this earlier, G.T. argued that very few if ZERO liberals
want to take guns away, and just want them restricted to law abiding responsible people
where criminals and mentally ill cannot get access.

Can we start from there?

There are at least 3 different levels we don't agree on
1. proper screening and training/procedures for
police and military
2. regulations on citizens
3. how to screen or distinguish the CRIMINALS
from the law abiding citizens so they don't lose rights
as if they have committed crimes or pose dangers to the public

 

[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.

STFU you commie shill! **** right the hell off with all that, k?

Are you kidding or is that a real (over) reaction?

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

STFU you commie shill! **** right the hell off with all that, k?

Are you kidding or is that a real (over) reaction?

I'm serious as a heart attack. Stop attacking the 2nd Amendment, you tard.

Let's not and say we didn't, ok? Those ideas are all kinds of full of fail. Bad ideas, bro.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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?

Dear LeftofLeft
When I asked this earlier, G.T. argued that very few if ZERO liberals
want to take guns away, and just want them restricted to law abiding responsible people
where criminals and mentally ill cannot get access.

Can we start from there?

There are at least 3 different levels we don't agree on
1. proper screening and training/procedures for
police and military
2. regulations on citizens
3. how to screen or distinguish the CRIMINALS
from the law abiding citizens so they don't lose rights
as if they have committed crimes or pose dangers to the public

Why would liberals want to take guns away?

I doubt liberals do. The Social Marxist authoritarian lemmings such as ANTIFA do, because then if you don't agree with them, they can just gang-beat you to death, and you have no protection.

I say G.T. was right: Liberals don't want to take US citizens' guns and rights away, commies and globalists do.
Most liberals own guns themselves.
Ah! I have a liberal cousin, he said I can come and shoot at his place anytime.

He's a real liberal, boy. Give him a guitar and he'll do "Imagine". .

True story. What a pinko song, but I never said a word because he's my cousin. He did it quite well, too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

You initial premise, "The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns" false.

Many liberals own guns, and most liberals believe sane, sober and law abiding citizens have the right to protect their family, home and business with a firearm.

Your trolling does not change this fact, and in fact, the only population who claim liberals are all gun grabbers, are the most extreme and the least open to honest debates on gun control.

 

[Marion Morrison]

O yay! Wry Catcher has weighed in.

Said No One Ever!

 

[Cellblock2429]

1. Make gun training MANDATORY for all school children ages 12 and older.

2. Do nothing else but repeal all federal gun laws.

Insurance is retarded. Accidental shootings are so ******* rare, it would be more effective to force everyone to carry lightening insurance. Besides, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidental shootings anyway. Intentional shootings will NEVER be covered or insurable. That is not how insurance works.

Regarding mandatory storage requirements, that is more bullshit. Weapons must be accessible to owners to actually be useful. See the D.C. case and others.

If we're going to make gun safety training mandatory, might was well just reenact the draft. Make it mandatory to do at least a year of military service, they can learn gun safety there.

Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.

.

/——/ They used to teach gun safety in high school until Libs put and end to it sometime in the 1960s

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Dear LeftofLeft
When I asked this earlier, G.T. argued that very few if ZERO liberals
want to take guns away, and just want them restricted to law abiding responsible people
where criminals and mentally ill cannot get access.

Can we start from there?

There are at least 3 different levels we don't agree on
1. proper screening and training/procedures for
police and military
2. regulations on citizens
3. how to screen or distinguish the CRIMINALS
from the law abiding citizens so they don't lose rights
as if they have committed crimes or pose dangers to the public

We already have laws on the books that restrict felons from owning or using firearms. We already have a federal law that requires dealers to do background checks on all sales.

When we explain to liberals that criminals don't get their guns from gun stores and dealers, they tell us that they get their guns from gun shows which there is no truth. Then they tell us the reason criminals get guns is because of the amount of guns we have. Therefore, the only possible way to stop criminals getting guns is to get rid of guns for everybody.

 

[Marion Morrison]

1. Make gun training MANDATORY for all school children ages 12 and older.

2. Do nothing else but repeal all federal gun laws.

Insurance is retarded. Accidental shootings are so ******* rare, it would be more effective to force everyone to carry lightening insurance. Besides, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidental shootings anyway. Intentional shootings will NEVER be covered or insurable. That is not how insurance works.

Regarding mandatory storage requirements, that is more bullshit. Weapons must be accessible to owners to actually be useful. See the D.C. case and others.

If we're going to make gun safety training mandatory, might was well just reenact the draft. Make it mandatory to do at least a year of military service, they can learn gun safety there.

Well, that would require people to serve and die in bullshit regime-change wars against their will. Mandatory school training is much less intrusive.

.

/——/ They used to teach gun safety in high school until Libs put and end to it sometime in the 1960s

They restricted us from having 3 guns in the gun rack in the school parking lot to 2 when I was a junior, cut it down to 1 rifle and 1 shotgun. All our gun racks had 3 spaces though, everyone made them in shop class.

 

[G.T.]

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?

Dear LeftofLeft
When I asked this earlier, G.T. argued that very few if ZERO liberals
want to take guns away, and just want them restricted to law abiding responsible people
where criminals and mentally ill cannot get access.

Can we start from there?

There are at least 3 different levels we don't agree on
1. proper screening and training/procedures for
police and military
2. regulations on citizens
3. how to screen or distinguish the CRIMINALS
from the law abiding citizens so they don't lose rights
as if they have committed crimes or pose dangers to the public

Please dont speak for me or place me into your squabbles.

My views are radical, and neither left n'or right and so I dont seek to engage the distractive pet issues of any of the partisan geeks.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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?

Dear LeftofLeft
When I asked this earlier, G.T. argued that very few if ZERO liberals
want to take guns away, and just want them restricted to law abiding responsible people
where criminals and mentally ill cannot get access.

Can we start from there?

There are at least 3 different levels we don't agree on
1. proper screening and training/procedures for
police and military
2. regulations on citizens
3. how to screen or distinguish the CRIMINALS
from the law abiding citizens so they don't lose rights
as if they have committed crimes or pose dangers to the public

Please dont speak for me or place me into your squabbles.

My views are radical, and neither left n'or right and so I dont seek to engage the distractive pet issues of any of the partisan geeks.

G.T. is a strange bird and he likes it that way. He's fairly apolitical.

Atonal too, but that's off topic.
I admire that he's himself and doesn't try to be anyone else, because I'm the same in that respect. Albeit with teh dad bod now, I might as well own it.

Your day is coming in a decade or so, G.T.

When teh gut lets go, you'll know you're there. When 100 situps don't work, **** it.

 

[G.T.]

my view on guns is that most people arent murderers...it takes severe mental anomalies or illnesses...stresses and delusions to actually take a life

and folks that have that deformity can do it with a box truck WAY more efficiently than with the (lack of) accuracy (most) have with a gun

its a slippery slope - the banning harmful things approach...and it wouldnt resolve the issue, and it limits people from a means of protection for some pretty sketchy logic...not enough reason


wanna know what resolves the issue of mass shooters, or lets just call them mass killers...


nothing.


it can be mitigated, it cant be extinct

 

[Marion Morrison]

So off topic, but dammit Scarface was right. At least I don't need a bra yet.

 

[Marion Morrison]

my view on guns is that most people arent murderers...it takes severe mental anomalies or illnesses...stresses and delusions to actually take a life

and folks that have that deformity can do it with a box truck WAY more efficiently than with the (lack of) accuracy (most) have with a gun

its a slippery slope - the banning harmful things approach...and it wouldnt resolve the issue, and it limits people from a means of protection for some pretty sketchy logic...not enough reason


wanna know what resolves the issue of mass shooters, or lets just call them mass killers...


nothing.


it can be mitigated, it cant be extinct

Ah, but proper Mental Hospitals could definitely put a dent in it.

That boy in FL should have been in Chattahoochee long before he did what he did, and would have in the past.

I can see that, and 2 of my aunts said the same damn thing.

Actually, they just asked: "Why wasn't he in Chattahoochee?"

Meanwhile, people are dying, "chemical restraints" are not working, and Big Pharma is making money they should not be.

 

[G.T.]

my view on guns is that most people arent murderers...it takes severe mental anomalies or illnesses...stresses and delusions to actually take a life

and folks that have that deformity can do it with a box truck WAY more efficiently than with the (lack of) accuracy (most) have with a gun

its a slippery slope - the banning harmful things approach...and it wouldnt resolve the issue, and it limits people from a means of protection for some pretty sketchy logic...not enough reason


wanna know what resolves the issue of mass shooters, or lets just call them mass killers...


nothing.


it can be mitigated, it cant be extinct

Ah, but proper Mental Hospitals could definitely put a dent in it.

yeah thats what i meant by mitigated

plus, mental hospitals were the most efficient way to get clinically controlled trials regarding nutrition...which is a total aside, but way too many nutritional studies are based on the inaccurate reporting of the dieters themselves...huge flaw red flag batman red flag no bad no stop

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as ****, not more accurate.

If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.

So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?

The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.

AKs, while just damn near the most reliable semi or fully automatic rifle (I've seen filthy, rusted, beat up pieces of crap I wouldn't have tried to fire on a bet that still worked perfectly) they are not precision weapons.

Home invasions are rare because it's easier to burglarize an empty house.

My Colt M4 has been more reliable than my AK's. Yes, just anecdotal, and they do have a rep for working when dirty.

Home invasions aren't "rare". I hear about them on the news almost every day in the big city that is nearby. It usually happens in bad areas in the city that are mostly Black. However, we did have one not too long ago near me. I like being able to have 30 round mags if the crew bursts through the door like what happened to my neighbors. They were not so fortunate as they were elderly and unarmed.

I think you are confusing burglaries with home invasions.

I've never owned a colt m4.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.

Your point=dipshit?

You came all the way from the canal to be "**** You"'d by me.

GTFO HERE

I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.

That is such a ******* lie.

We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.

I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.



.

And still, numbers don't lie.

no they dont,,,

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Opinion pieces are not facts.

 

[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.

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.

when you start calling for all cars to be banned we can take you seriously,,,

until then youre still a moron,,,

When you start actually reading my posts instead of making shit up maybe someone here will take you seriously.


But I doubt it.

dont worry I read every word,,,,

You've just told a lie.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.

Your point=dipshit?

You came all the way from the canal to be "**** You"'d by me.

GTFO HERE

I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.

That is such a ******* lie.

We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.

I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.



.

And still, numbers don't lie.

What numbers?
Do you have numbers for swimming pools?
cars?
knives?
baseball bats?
legos?

You feel free to start your own thread about the lethality of Legos, this is about gun control.