Gun Grabbers, Riddle Me This...

[boedicca]

So, how many people will they kill when they are sent on missions to seize 400M guns from American gun owners?

Did you get off on asking silly questions?

If the people with guns, the "law abiding" decided to not be "law abiding" then who knows.

You can choose to obey the law or not.

None of you moonbats have provided a link to the mass shooting performed by legal gun owning NRA members.

*crickets*

I didn't say any of these were done by NRA members. So why would I prove it?

You didn't prove that the London Fuckwits won the Superbowl last year. Wow.

There are 6 million NRA members in the U.S. If law-abiding people are going on shooting rampages, statistically quite a few of them should be NRA members.

Linky?

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did you get off on asking silly questions?

If the people with guns, the "law abiding" decided to not be "law abiding" then who knows.

You can choose to obey the law or not.

None of you moonbats have provided a link to the mass shooting performed by legal gun owning NRA members.

*crickets*

I didn't say any of these were done by NRA members. So why would I prove it?

You didn't prove that the London Fuckwits won the Superbowl last year. Wow.

There are 6 million NRA members in the U.S. If law-abiding people are going on shooting rampages, statistically quite a few of them should be NRA members.

Linky?

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

 

[boedicca]

None of you moonbats have provided a link to the mass shooting performed by legal gun owning NRA members.

*crickets*

I didn't say any of these were done by NRA members. So why would I prove it?

You didn't prove that the London Fuckwits won the Superbowl last year. Wow.

There are 6 million NRA members in the U.S. If law-abiding people are going on shooting rampages, statistically quite a few of them should be NRA members.

Linky?

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Owning a gun is not a crime and doesn't harm anyone.

Murder is a crime because it does harm someone.

Please, try to use some logic before spewing your sophistry.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

None of you moonbats have provided a link to the mass shooting performed by legal gun owning NRA members.

*crickets*

I didn't say any of these were done by NRA members. So why would I prove it?

You didn't prove that the London Fuckwits won the Superbowl last year. Wow.

There are 6 million NRA members in the U.S. If law-abiding people are going on shooting rampages, statistically quite a few of them should be NRA members.

Linky?

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say any of these were done by NRA members. So why would I prove it?

You didn't prove that the London Fuckwits won the Superbowl last year. Wow.

There are 6 million NRA members in the U.S. If law-abiding people are going on shooting rampages, statistically quite a few of them should be NRA members.

Linky?

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Owning a gun is not a crime and doesn't harm anyone.

Murder is a crime because it does harm someone.

Please, try to use some logic before spewing your sophistry.

No, owning a gun is not a crime.

If they make a law banning guns, owning a gun would be a crime.

Do you see how that works?

As for owning guns doesn't hurt anyone, well, I disagree. The easy availability of guns in society hurts quite a lot of people, actually, 10,000 people a year are killed and how many injured because of this?

Human beings with guns are far more effective killers than humans without guns. The evidence there is clear.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As for owning guns doesn't hurt anyone, well, I disagree. The easy availability of guns in society hurts quite a lot of people, actually, 10,000 people a year are killed and how many injured because of this?

ONLY if used for an improper purpose. No improper use, no harm. Agree?

Human beings with guns are far more effective killers than humans without guns. The evidence there is clear

That's the point. Human beings with bigger bodies and muscles are more effective killers than people who are smaller with smaller muscles (like women). Guns are the great equalizer.

Leftists should love guns. They make everybody equal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say any of these were done by NRA members. So why would I prove it?

You didn't prove that the London Fuckwits won the Superbowl last year. Wow.

There are 6 million NRA members in the U.S. If law-abiding people are going on shooting rampages, statistically quite a few of them should be NRA members.

Linky?

This is your argument... why do you expect me to provide links for your argument?

This is another typical tactic of people without decent arguments.

You ignore what is being spoken about and then start discussing something you read somewhere that you're comfortable arguing with.

It's pathetic.

Here, try this, find a link where I said anything about NRA members going around killing people. Come on.

You mused about what would happen if law-abiding gun owners suddenly decided not to be law-abiding...that is a smear that gun owners can't be trusted.

If that were the case, with all of the animus towards the NRA, there would be well publicized statistics regarding NRA members suddenly deciding not to be law-abiding, etc.

You can't provide any such thing.

But, I am still waiting for your body count estimate when the police conduct seizures of weapons from gun owners.

Can gun owners not be trusted?

Let's see.



Hear the cheering in the background?

So basically you're telling me a law should not be enacted because certain members of society would decide to become criminals because of it?

Huh?

So we should not ban murder because some people are going to murder anyway?

Absurd.

Or, there's another way to interpret that.

Don't deprive me of inalienable rights or I will do what the founders did and revoke consent to be governed by said government....by force if necessary.

You know, it's funny.

There's something called "compartmentalization". What this essentially means is that people put every political issue into a separate box.

It means that people can argue issue one way, and then turn around 180 degrees and use an argument that is totally contrary to the first argument.

So, on the 2A it's "you can't take away our rights".

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

Some people would call it a God given right, funny, did guns exist when God decided to make humans?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

This is where someone like me kicks your figurative ass. I am a liberal. I support gay marriage rights. Actually, marriage is nothing more than a contract. People of the same sex can contract with one another. Why is it different with marriage?

You, like the Jesus Nazis who hate gays, have selective principles of liberty. You only support liberty when it effects you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

This is the ONLY country in the world on a lot of things. Why do you want to change it when you can get what you want elsewhere? We, on the other hand, have nowhere to go.

It's because you want global communism and America is the only thing standing in the way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As for owning guns doesn't hurt anyone, well, I disagree. The easy availability of guns in society hurts quite a lot of people, actually, 10,000 people a year are killed and how many injured because of this?

ONLY if used for an improper purpose. No improper use, no harm. Agree?

Human beings with guns are far more effective killers than humans without guns. The evidence there is clear

That's the point. Human beings with bigger bodies and muscles are more effective killers than people who are smaller with smaller muscles (like women). Guns are the great equalizer.

Leftists should love guns. They make everybody equal.

No, I don't agree.

Imagine you have a gun because of easy availability of guns. Yet some kid also gets a gun easily and then shoots up a school killing 17 people.

The easy availability for YOU cost other people their lives.

Now, take Switzerland as an example.

Guns in Switzerland — Firearms, gun law and gun control

24.45 guns per 100 people, compared to about 100 for the US.

About 28.6% households have guns, compared to 31% for the US. The US just has quite a few people who stockpile guns.

Not much difference right?

The difference is that in Switzerland the total number of gun deaths is 3.01 per 100,000, and in the US it's 11.96.

Why the difference? Why a 4 times higher rate in the US than Switzerland?

Gun laws in Switzerland - Wikipedia

"In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit "

So, every gun bought must require a permit. The US more or less has something similar.

"Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. "

So, basically you don't have a right to such a permit. The govt can say "you pose a security risk, you're not getting one". Criminals are barred from guns in the US, those who have serious mental problems are also barred, after due process.

"
The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:

• valid official identification or passport copy
• residence address
• criminal record copy not older than 3 months"

So, you want a gun, you have to go to the police and get a criminal record copy and hand it in with your gun application.

"For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (art. 10 WG/LArm), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (art. 11 WG/LArm):"

"In order to purchase ammunition the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns. The buyer can only buy ammunition for guns that he/she legally owns and must provide the following information to the seller (art. 15, 16 WG/LArm; art. 24 WV/OArm)"

This is where it gets a little harder. You need permission to buy ammo too.

"To carry a firearm in public or outdoors (and for a militia member to carry a firearm other than his issued weapons while off-duty), a person must have a gun carrying permit "

So, third permit. One to buy a gun, one to buy ammo, one to carry the gun.

• "passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon"

In order to get the latter permit you need to pass a test showing you can use the gun.

"
Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply (art. 28 WG/LArm):

• The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine
• The transport needs to be as direct as possible and needs a valid purpose:"
  

If you need to transport the gun you have to do it in a certain way.

In Switzerland there is not an easy availability of guns. The process is not an easy one. People take care of their guns because if they lose their gun, they're going to have problems and the like.



Yes, a human with a bigger body can kill better than a smaller person. However a gun increases the danger far more disproportionately than a larger body.

The reality is that 3/4 of all murders in the US are with guns. The US murder rate is 4 times higher or more than most other First World countries.

Coincidence? The US non-gun murder rate is similar to the UK murder rate....

 

[frigidweirdo]

On the issue of gay marriage it's "take away their rights" (which in turn takes away YOUR right because it then becomes a PRIVILEGE and not a right.

This is where someone like me kicks your figurative ass. I am a liberal. I support gay marriage rights. Actually, marriage is nothing more than a contract. People of the same sex can contract with one another. Why is it different with marriage?

You, like the Jesus Nazis who hate gays, have selective principles of liberty. You only support liberty when it effects you.

The point being made is that MANY PEOPLE who are pro-gun are anti-gay marriage. Whether you are or aren't isn't really the issue here.

Do you agree with the statement that many people who shout out about their right to own weapons, also shout out that gay people should not marry?

 

[frigidweirdo]

As for there being an inalienable right, the US is the ONLY country in the world to say there's a right to a specific man made object.

This is the ONLY country in the world on a lot of things. Why do you want to change it when you can get what you want elsewhere? We, on the other hand, have nowhere to go.

It's because you want global communism and America is the only thing standing in the way.

Oh, I want global Communism, do I?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine you have a gun because of easy availability of guns. Yet some kid also gets a gun easily and then shoots up a school killing 17 people.

The easy availability for YOU cost other people their lives.

There is no causal connection with my having a gun to the kid shooting up a school. There are a number of intervening causes that separate my mere possession of a gun from the criminal act of another.

How far can we take that many levels of causal connection on other issues that can **** over your rights? We could make the same arguments about free speech and shut it all down. The standard you are setting is goose-stepping authoritarian NAZI shit.

Do you like ANY manner of liberty? Wtat the ****?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, I want global Communism, do I?

I have no doubt.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The point being made is that MANY PEOPLE who are pro-gun are anti-gay marriage. Whether you are or aren't isn't really the issue here.

It is the issue because I am consistent in my value of liberty. You are CLEARLY not.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, a human with a bigger body can kill better than a smaller person. However a gun increases the danger far more disproportionately than a larger body.

Don't **** with people. Violence is deadly. Don't do it.


Don't start nothin'. Won't be nothin'.

And the way you talk about guns make it OBVIOUS you support a complete ban and confiscation. No gun is acceptable to you.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

There's no way in hell gun seizures will ever happen.

1950's - "There's no way in hell America will ever elect a black President"
1970's - "There's no way in hell China will ever be able to militarily challenge the USA".
2000's - There's no way in hell America will ever allow government to mandate health care"

lol
Sure...the Constitution is always there to protect you.
Sure...armed rebellion....because even though you won't, everyone ELSE will.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Good luck getting Americans to turn in their guns. So, when they don't, how do you plan to get their guns?
Let's say half refuse to comply. Do you send in swat teams or the cellphone police?

The Myth..."Gun confiscation would never work, we have a Constitutional Right!"
(As if your rights haven't been shit on repeatedly already)

1). Turn public opinion against gun ownership
2). Incrementally outlaw one class of guns, then another, then another....always making the guns a horrible evil
3). Start in states already 2nd Amendment unfriendly.
4). Pass Federal Laws threatening unbearably severe consequences for NOT turning them in (80% will)
5). Use ANY social crisis as an excuse and get people used to heavily armed government forces intruding
6). Offer large rewards to those who turn in ANYONE known to have guns or SUSPECTED of having guns.

My point is that your mistake is underestimating the enemy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Imagine you have a gun because of easy availability of guns. Yet some kid also gets a gun easily and then shoots up a school killing 17 people.

The easy availability for YOU cost other people their lives.

There is no causal connection with my having a gun to the kid shooting up a school. There are a number of intervening causes that separate my mere possession of a gun from the criminal act of another.

How far can we take that many levels of causal connection on other issues that can **** over your rights? We could make the same arguments about free speech and shut it all down. The standard you are setting is goose-stepping authoritarian NAZI shit.

Do you like ANY manner of liberty? Wtat the ****?

See, what you're doing is compartmentalizing the issue.

You're saying "I have a gun, that I have a gun doesn't hurt anyone"

In itself it's true. But on its own it hides the other facts.

In other countries there are underlying issues that cause crime. And yet other First World countries don't have the murder rate the US does, they don't have school shootings happening every month, they don't have all of this.

You talk about liberty. What is liberty? Freedom to do ANYTHING you like? No. You can't murder people. You can't steal from people. Each of these has an impact.

Guns in the hands of humans makes humans more dangerous. That's a simple fact.

Rights are limited all the time.

In Switzerland they're not having this talk. Why?

You are right in that there are other issues here. The whole reason why the gun issue is at the top of the table is because the two political parties have "their issues". Abortion, guns, they're easy, they separate the two parties while at the same time they're essentially scratching each others' backs keeping the system good for them and bad for everyone else.

So we're back to what we spoke about before, nothing will change without a change in the system. The kids stand up and protest because they've been brainwashed into thinking that the biggest issue is guns, when it's not.

However if they can change the gun issue, perhaps they can change everything else. Perhaps.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point being made is that MANY PEOPLE who are pro-gun are anti-gay marriage. Whether you are or aren't isn't really the issue here.

It is the issue because I am consistent in my value of liberty. You are CLEARLY not.

And why do you say that?

Maybe I just see liberty differently to you.

Here's a question, it's about anarchy.

Anarchy is total freedom. Is a person freer in anarchy or are they freer in a system which limits some of their total freedoms?