“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[BULLDOG]

Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post.

yet you don't post anything of value on these topics, do you? i asked you a simple question so we can understand your viewpoint and you won't answer it.

ergo, that falls heavy into trollism, wouldn't it?

Ask your question.

i did. you chose to hit rather than answer. but hey - if you look back 2 posts you'll see i plainly asked:

"do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?"

so there. your question.

Are you referring to #484 where I clearly answered your question dumb ass?
View attachment 279984

and exactly how does:

"Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post."

answer the question on how you feel about losing due process for a singular gain?

The first word. NOPE.

 

[iceberg]

Yep....make the rules.

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon. Assault weapons are protected by the second amendment

Assault weapons are not protected by the second amendment

If you want a definition of assault weapon, it can be done

yet here we are. you've not done it yet in a manner which only defines the AR15. you keep saying it can be, or it has been or the like but the world around you would disagree immensely about your premise.

assault weapon has been defined. long ago.

A Brief History of the Assault Rifle
The name “assault rifle” is believed to have been coined by Adolf Hitler. Toward the end of World War II, the story goes, Hitler hailed his army’s new wonder weapon by insisting that it be called not by the technical name given it by its developers, the Machinenpistole (the German name for a submachine gun), but rather something that made for better propaganda copy. A Sturmgewehr, he called the new gun: a “storm” or “assault” weapon.

you often quote hitler in your values?

 

[MisterBeale]

Yep....make the rules.

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon. Assault weapons are protected by the second amendment

Assault weapons are not protected by the second amendment

If you want a definition of assault weapon, it can be done

Says you. . . .

 

[sealybobo]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower.

So why do we allow our military to have it? You said nobody. Nobody means nobody.

Many of us with foresight can envision scenarios where those in power who have the exclusive use of force will abuse that power.

We get what the common soldier/marine has, goddamnit, or the military can disarm.

.

We want our military to have nukes. Should you also have nukes?

We want our military to be able to take out the enemy home and abroad. I want them to be able to take out an entire city with one pull of the trigger. I don't want every tom dick and Mohammad in America to have that ability though.

If they are going after you, you're the enemy.

You are more worried about the government taking your guns away than you are your kids getting shot. I bet if you were a Sandy Hook parent you wouldn't be this way.

You can own a gun with 10 rounds. That's it. And full background checks. Now you will worry that the government has you on a list and they can come take your guns someday. You guys are paranoid. Sorry but guns are too deadly for us to continue to be loosy goosy with the rules. This isn't Mayberry anymore. White men have gone nuts. Right wing extremist groups and hate groups are at an all time high. Too many people snapping. What you guys want is to instead of better regulate and limit the amount of firepower a person can have, instead you want to start carrying more guns. NUts.

 

[iceberg]

So which is it this week, snowflakes? Are you sticking to your lie that Democrats are NOT coming for our guns, or have you accepted what Betot revealed publicly?

Not ALL guns

Just guns you can’t be trusted with

and you wonder why i call you a troll. this says NOTHING about the issue and is just getting shots in. like i said, i get into it also, bad me and i'm working on it. but when all you do is this drive-by snarking, what are your real goals in here? snark off, or try to discuss issues like an adult?

It is the issue

AR type weapons with large capacity magazines are the weapon of choice for mass killings. It is becoming obvious that those weapons can no longer be tolerated

Now, stop trolling

trolling is a refusal to engage in serious discussion but instead engaging in short term snark and ever-changing definitions for the goal of looking for reactions from people. so far that is you to a T.

you still have not defined just the AR.

i also asked you to focus on firing rate and said, IN THAT POST EVEN, you'd refuse to do so and instead jump around from topic to topic screaming nonsense.

look. i win again.

 

[iceberg]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower.

So why do we allow our military to have it? You said nobody. Nobody means nobody.

Many of us with foresight can envision scenarios where those in power who have the exclusive use of force will abuse that power.

We get what the common soldier/marine has, goddamnit, or the military can disarm.

.

We want our military to have nukes. Should you also have nukes?

We want our military to be able to take out the enemy home and abroad. I want them to be able to take out an entire city with one pull of the trigger. I don't want every tom dick and Mohammad in America to have that ability though.

If they are going after you, you're the enemy.

You are more worried about the government taking your guns away than you are your kids getting shot. I bet if you were a Sandy Hook parent you wouldn't be this way.

You can own a gun with 10 rounds. That's it. And full background checks. Now you will worry that the government has you on a list and they can come take your guns someday. You guys are paranoid. Sorry but guns are too deadly for us to continue to be loosy goosy with the rules. This isn't Mayberry anymore. White men have gone nuts. Right wing extremist groups and hate groups are at an all time high. Too many people snapping. What you guys want is to instead of better regulate and limit the amount of firepower a person can have, instead you want to start carrying more guns. NUts.

good luck passing that type of legislation, spanky.

and i don't want anyone to have nukes. blown assumption from the word GO.

 

[BULLDOG]

The country decided gay people had a right to get married, and we got gay marriage. The country decided weed should be legalized, and weed is being legalized. The country decided we need universal background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines and guns designed for combat. The NRA and gun nuts will whine, but we will achieve that too.

As others have pointed out, big difference here.


All those previous things did not have constitutional protections.

The state can supposedly "pass a law," but unless you change the constitution, there really isn't a damn thing that will change. Law enforcement will be as uneven doing those things, as it has been about gay marriage and pot. It is part of the fabric of the culture buddy. Thus, it will be ineffective. Good luck with your fantasies.

The SC determined those things are protected. We might not have recognized those protections before, but the constitution hasn't changed to add those protections.

 

[sealybobo]

Are you in a militia? Is it well regulated?

Without legal gun owners, there can be no Militia. Get it now?

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I’m building a drone like the ones the Iranians used to bomb the Saudi oil fields. And I’m selling them. No background checks.

And like employers take fake ids from illegals, I can’t help it that the person had a fake Id. Not their fault, not my fault when I accidentally sell one to al quida.

Th us government has them so why can’t I?

So, you are building/selling bomb-capable drones? How can I get one?

So you get my point then? The US Military has them and you want to be just as armed as they are? You people are insane.

You can't see a scenario where the people in command could get out-of-control.? Has history taught you nothing?

It's typical leftism. You can either see the future nor can you look back to the past and learn from it.

No I get that and I struggle with this. How powerful and deadly is too much? And yea I like it that we have guns in case our government gets too corrupt. But they have drones with missiles. Do you want them too? So from my living room I can fly my drone with a missile to the Lions football stadium and wipe everyone out? Hey, it's my 2nd amendment right.

You know when you idiots will wake up? If one day angry blacks mexicans or muslim Americans start using these WMD's to take out Americans. Like, if it happened every day for a year you may wake up and realize we shouldn't let just any tom dick or mohammad own these types of guns. And every gun sale should require a real background check. No loopholes. If Sandy Hook happened at a private school that all the politicians sent their kids to, you'd see legislation tomorrow.

Then rid everyone else of those weapons. Including police and military.

Because they have those weapons, I'm not comfortable having that kind of imbalance in power. I know there is risk involved with arming everyone, but there's no alternative with that type of imbalance.

.

 

[sealybobo]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower.

So why do we allow our military to have it? You said nobody. Nobody means nobody.

Many of us with foresight can envision scenarios where those in power who have the exclusive use of force will abuse that power.

We get what the common soldier/marine has, goddamnit, or the military can disarm.

.

We want our military to have nukes. Should you also have nukes?

We want our military to be able to take out the enemy home and abroad. I want them to be able to take out an entire city with one pull of the trigger. I don't want every tom dick and Mohammad in America to have that ability though.

If they are going after you, you're the enemy.

You are more worried about the government taking your guns away than you are your kids getting shot. I bet if you were a Sandy Hook parent you wouldn't be this way.

You can own a gun with 10 rounds. That's it. And full background checks. Now you will worry that the government has you on a list and they can come take your guns someday. You guys are paranoid. Sorry but guns are too deadly for us to continue to be loosy goosy with the rules. This isn't Mayberry anymore. White men have gone nuts. Right wing extremist groups and hate groups are at an all time high. Too many people snapping. What you guys want is to instead of better regulate and limit the amount of firepower a person can have, instead you want to start carrying more guns. NUts.

good luck passing that type of legislation, spanky.

and i don't want anyone to have nukes. blown assumption from the word GO.

Who cares what you want. Don't be a hypocrite. I want a nuke. And if our government can have one, why can't I?

You just lost the argument. Don't try and change the subject and say you don't want one. I want one. Your neighbor wants one. Why can't we have it?

 

[iceberg]

Without legal gun owners, there can be no Militia. Get it now?

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

 

[sealybobo]

I’m building a drone like the ones the Iranians used to bomb the Saudi oil fields. And I’m selling them. No background checks.

And like employers take fake ids from illegals, I can’t help it that the person had a fake Id. Not their fault, not my fault when I accidentally sell one to al quida.

Th us government has them so why can’t I?

So, you are building/selling bomb-capable drones? How can I get one?

So you get my point then? The US Military has them and you want to be just as armed as they are? You people are insane.

You can't see a scenario where the people in command could get out-of-control.? Has history taught you nothing?

It's typical leftism. You can either see the future nor can you look back to the past and learn from it.

No I get that and I struggle with this. How powerful and deadly is too much? And yea I like it that we have guns in case our government gets too corrupt. But they have drones with missiles. Do you want them too? So from my living room I can fly my drone with a missile to the Lions football stadium and wipe everyone out? Hey, it's my 2nd amendment right.

You know when you idiots will wake up? If one day angry blacks mexicans or muslim Americans start using these WMD's to take out Americans. Like, if it happened every day for a year you may wake up and realize we shouldn't let just any tom dick or mohammad own these types of guns. And every gun sale should require a real background check. No loopholes. If Sandy Hook happened at a private school that all the politicians sent their kids to, you'd see legislation tomorrow.

Then rid everyone else of those weapons. Including police and military.

Because they have those weapons, I'm not comfortable having that kind of in balance and power. I know there is risk involved with arming everyone, but there's no alternative with that type of in balance.

.

If the military wants to take us they can come take us. We don't have nearly enough semi autos out there to stop them if they wanted to systematically come in and "take us" one city/town at a time.

So that "in balance" you refer to already exists.

Do we have tanks? Drones with bombs strapped to them? RPG's? Nukes? So stop worrying. You're already fucked if they want to **** you. But once it becomes gorilla war then you have your 45 or 357 or glock.

 

[iceberg]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower.

So why do we allow our military to have it? You said nobody. Nobody means nobody.

Many of us with foresight can envision scenarios where those in power who have the exclusive use of force will abuse that power.

We get what the common soldier/marine has, goddamnit, or the military can disarm.

.

We want our military to have nukes. Should you also have nukes?

We want our military to be able to take out the enemy home and abroad. I want them to be able to take out an entire city with one pull of the trigger. I don't want every tom dick and Mohammad in America to have that ability though.

If they are going after you, you're the enemy.

You are more worried about the government taking your guns away than you are your kids getting shot. I bet if you were a Sandy Hook parent you wouldn't be this way.

You can own a gun with 10 rounds. That's it. And full background checks. Now you will worry that the government has you on a list and they can come take your guns someday. You guys are paranoid. Sorry but guns are too deadly for us to continue to be loosy goosy with the rules. This isn't Mayberry anymore. White men have gone nuts. Right wing extremist groups and hate groups are at an all time high. Too many people snapping. What you guys want is to instead of better regulate and limit the amount of firepower a person can have, instead you want to start carrying more guns. NUts.

good luck passing that type of legislation, spanky.

and i don't want anyone to have nukes. blown assumption from the word GO.

Who cares what you want. Don't be a hypocrite. I want a nuke. And if our government can have one, why can't I?

You just lost the argument. Don't try and change the subject and say you don't want one. I want one. Your neighbor wants one. Why can't we have it?

go get one. tell me how that works out for you.

 

[rightwinger]

So which is it this week, snowflakes? Are you sticking to your lie that Democrats are NOT coming for our guns, or have you accepted what Betot revealed publicly?

Not ALL guns

Just guns you can’t be trusted with

and you wonder why i call you a troll. this says NOTHING about the issue and is just getting shots in. like i said, i get into it also, bad me and i'm working on it. but when all you do is this drive-by snarking, what are your real goals in here? snark off, or try to discuss issues like an adult?

It is the issue

AR type weapons with large capacity magazines are the weapon of choice for mass killings. It is becoming obvious that those weapons can no longer be tolerated

Now, stop trolling

So we are going to ban security forces and police from having them, is that it?


The elites that rule over this nation would no longer be able to have their body guards and security protection services have access to carry them? Private security contractors can no longer have them?

What a relief.

Of course not
They are trained and have a sworn role to protect society

Body Guards are trained and certified. Gun owners are not

I have no problem with police and certified security having assault weapons. I have a problem with Adam Lanz having one

 

[sealybobo]

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

Good post. Can't argue. Even if we ban all rifles then crazies will just start using glocks and then the left will want to ban 10 round glock handguns. I get it

 

[sealybobo]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower.

So why do we allow our military to have it? You said nobody. Nobody means nobody.

Many of us with foresight can envision scenarios where those in power who have the exclusive use of force will abuse that power.

We get what the common soldier/marine has, goddamnit, or the military can disarm.

.

We want our military to have nukes. Should you also have nukes?

We want our military to be able to take out the enemy home and abroad. I want them to be able to take out an entire city with one pull of the trigger. I don't want every tom dick and Mohammad in America to have that ability though.

If they are going after you, you're the enemy.

You are more worried about the government taking your guns away than you are your kids getting shot. I bet if you were a Sandy Hook parent you wouldn't be this way.

You can own a gun with 10 rounds. That's it. And full background checks. Now you will worry that the government has you on a list and they can come take your guns someday. You guys are paranoid. Sorry but guns are too deadly for us to continue to be loosy goosy with the rules. This isn't Mayberry anymore. White men have gone nuts. Right wing extremist groups and hate groups are at an all time high. Too many people snapping. What you guys want is to instead of better regulate and limit the amount of firepower a person can have, instead you want to start carrying more guns. NUts.

good luck passing that type of legislation, spanky.

and i don't want anyone to have nukes. blown assumption from the word GO.

Who cares what you want. Don't be a hypocrite. I want a nuke. And if our government can have one, why can't I?

You just lost the argument. Don't try and change the subject and say you don't want one. I want one. Your neighbor wants one. Why can't we have it?

go get one. tell me how that works out for you.

So you don't want me to have one even though my government has them. Got it.

 

[rightwinger]

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

 

[iceberg]

yet you don't post anything of value on these topics, do you? i asked you a simple question so we can understand your viewpoint and you won't answer it.

ergo, that falls heavy into trollism, wouldn't it?

Ask your question.

i did. you chose to hit rather than answer. but hey - if you look back 2 posts you'll see i plainly asked:

"do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?"

so there. your question.

Are you referring to #484 where I clearly answered your question dumb ass?
View attachment 279984

and exactly how does:

"Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post."

answer the question on how you feel about losing due process for a singular gain?

The first word. NOPE.

so you don't see red flag laws as bypassing due process? then as a follow up it would stand to reason you don't see them bypassing due process for "other" issues as they come along.

am i correct in comprehending your overly verbose response?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower.

So why do we allow our military to have it? You said nobody. Nobody means nobody.

Many of us with foresight can envision scenarios where those in power who have the exclusive use of force will abuse that power.

We get what the common soldier/marine has, goddamnit, or the military can disarm.

.

We want our military to have nukes. Should you also have nukes?

We want our military to be able to take out the enemy home and abroad. I want them to be able to take out an entire city with one pull of the trigger. I don't want every tom dick and Mohammad in America to have that ability though.

If they are going after you, you're the enemy.

You are more worried about the government taking your guns away than you are your kids getting shot. I bet if you were a Sandy Hook parent you wouldn't be this way.

You can own a gun with 10 rounds. That's it. And full background checks. Now you will worry that the government has you on a list and they can come take your guns someday. You guys are paranoid. Sorry but guns are too deadly for us to continue to be loosy goosy with the rules. This isn't Mayberry anymore. White men have gone nuts. Right wing extremist groups and hate groups are at an all time high. Too many people snapping. What you guys want is to instead of better regulate and limit the amount of firepower a person can have, instead you want to start carrying more guns. NUts.

good luck passing that type of legislation, spanky.

and i don't want anyone to have nukes. blown assumption from the word GO.

Who cares what you want. Don't be a hypocrite. I want a nuke. And if our government can have one, why can't I?

You just lost the argument. Don't try and change the subject and say you don't want one. I want one. Your neighbor wants one. Why can't we have it?

Again, you don't want me to have a nuke, why do you let your government have a nuke? Or a grenade? Or a machine gun? Or tank?

Don't assume that I am a right-wing warhawk. Our military is way way way way too big and powerful. I have no problem stripping them naked along with the rest of the world. If we're all going to disarm, then the entire world needs to do so, including militaries.

.

 

[iceberg]

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

isn't this what i said?

i just also said we need to fix the background db before we flood it with even more.

and you never have answered direct questions i've asked. yet you wonder why i tag you "troll".