Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

[Levant]

Nonsense.

The issue has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.

The problem isn’t guns, the availability of guns, or how guns are regulated.
The problem is the inherently violent nature of American society; a society where violence is sanctioned as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

The problem is the lack of access to affordable healthcare – mental healthcare in particular.

Part of the solution can be found in addressing the violent nature of American society and the lack of access to affordable mental healthcare, rendering irrelevant the availability of guns and how guns are regulate.

Maybe the government could give us all drugs in our drinking water to control our minds.

Or, the government could put criminals in jail. Nah.. It'd never work.

 

[Levant]

I know... Group counseling for MS13.... That's the ticket. Anger management for the Bloods and the Crips.

 

[OldLady]

My post early in this thread was wrong: 15,000 gang related gun homicides over several years, not in one year. I've requested mod staff fix it if they can. It's too late to edit.

So, more than once, and even more that you have not yet acknowledged compared to those you have recognized and acknowledged, you've learned that your posts are wrong here. Do you not see the pattern here? Go back and do more research and study. Make sure you verify everything you read from CNN and MSNBC because they're lying to you. When you have done the research and recognize the value and importance of guns in the United States and our continued liberty.

If you find yourself coming to the same opinions you've voiced here so far, feel free to reach out for help and we'll be glad to point out, again, where you're wrong.

I made a mistake and I not only admitted it, I supplied the information. That is only a "pattern" of being honest and accepting new information even if it isn't what I previously believed.

I came to this board five years ago to argue for gun control and I've done plenty of "looking into it." I don't need your help to come to my conclusions. You are basing your argument of defense against a tyrannical government on nothing but pipe dreams.

I'm not wrong. Massive numbers of guns correlate to massive numbers of death by guns, far more than any other "civilized" country. One doesn't have to be a genius to get that.

 

[Markle]

I don't give a damn what you call it. These "tactical rifles" and AR's have only one thing missing--the full auto feature. They aren't sold to civilians, so that topic is not even under discussion here.

As you know, it is perfectly legal for you to own a machine gun.

Which of the following guns is semi-automatic?

I don't remember which leftist state it was but I read recently that one state was working on banning all semi-automatic guns and the definition of semi-automatic was that firing one round resulted in the next round being positioned to fire on the next pull of the trigger. That makes the revolver, by that definition, a semi-automatic weapon.

Give the man a cigar! They're all semi-automatic.

 

[OldLady]

he second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

What is ridiculous about it?

The fact that you're asking that question illustrates your complete ignorance of the topic. You are making a fool of yourself.

Freyasman, you need to do a lot better than that. To me what I wrote makes perfect sense. If you want to change my mind you have to do something more than the usual insults.

I'm actually not trying to insult you, I'm trying to get you to stop embarrassing yourself by talking about something you don't have so much as a child's understanding of.

Tell me why or shut the hell up.

Shut the hell up?

Or what?

How are you going to make me shut up? You don't have any means of doing so, nor would you if you were standing right in front of me. You simply don't have any way of forcing me to do what you demand, just like the government has no way of enforcing their demands. You are somehow convinced that both you and they do, but it's a fallacy that will evaporate like that guy's head did, into a red mist I saw looking through the scope on my M14 back when, as soon as it comes up against any serious resistance.

Your opinion is foolish and ignorant. That you tried to represent it as fact, rather than just your opinion, is even more foolish. Talking shit when you have zero force you can project, is also foolish and ignorant, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a fool of yourself.

You are ignorant and impotent, and that is why I don't need to concern myself with changing your mind.

Then shut the fuck up about it. You've already said that and you still haven't explained what is wrong with my opinion on the 2nd Amendment. That is YOUR failing, not mine.

 

[Dr Grump]

Thank goodness for guns ... otherwise, we'd still be English.

Like that's a bad thing....

 

[OldLady]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

You are just going to keep embarrassing yourself, aren't you?

You're the one embarrassing yourself, by demonstrating that all you've got is put-downs and no good reasons for saying that what I've said about the 2nd isn't true.

 

[Markle]

I made a mistake and I not only admitted it, I supplied the information. That is only a "pattern" of being honest and accepting new information even if it isn't what I previously believed.

I came to this board five years ago to argue for gun control and I've done plenty of "looking into it." I don't need your help to come to my conclusions. You are basing your argument of defense against a tyrannical government on nothing but pipe dreams.

I'm not wrong. Massive numbers of guns correlate to massive numbers of death by guns, far more than any other "civilized" country. One doesn't have to be a genius to get that.

Instead of working so hard to deprive other law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights, why not work as hard on increasing the penalties against those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime?

 

[OldLady]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

You have to take into consideration she didnt know that Isopropyl alcohol was flammable and deadly to drink.
Or how there's fire involved in bananas foster.
And to think she's a teacher....

LIAR. I wasn't putting two and two together about fucking rubbing alcohol being highly flammable but the rest is a lie. Keep it honest, HWGA.

You flat out said you didnt know what caused banana flambe to burn.

Your nose is going to get so long you trip over it. Watch out. It was cherries jubilee, anyway, and I'm the one who thought of it.

 

[OldLady]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

So what towns full of civilians will these guns be pointed at?

Ask Levant. That's his pipe dream.

 

[freyasman]

he second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

What is ridiculous about it?

The fact that you're asking that question illustrates your complete ignorance of the topic. You are making a fool of yourself.

Freyasman, you need to do a lot better than that. To me what I wrote makes perfect sense. If you want to change my mind you have to do something more than the usual insults.

And I don't need to change your mind, because the opinion of someone like you simply doesn't matter.

All you've got is insults, then? Disappointing. I was interested to hear what deep knowledge of the Constitution and the Second Amendment and the intent of the Founding Fathers and the state of weaponry in 1787 you have that I don't.

My dog is pretty smart but I don't hold these kind of conversations with him because the concepts, simple as they are, are beyond his ken.

I don't feel like I need to do so with you either, and for the same reason.

 

[OldLady]

I don't give a damn what you call it. These "tactical rifles" and AR's have only one thing missing--the full auto feature. They aren't sold to civilians, so that topic is not even under discussion here.

As you know, it is perfectly legal for you to own a machine gun.

Which of the following guns is semi-automatic?

I don't remember which leftist state it was but I read recently that one state was working on banning all semi-automatic guns and the definition of semi-automatic was that firing one round resulted in the next round being positioned to fire on the next pull of the trigger. That makes the revolver, by that definition, a semi-automatic weapon.

Yeah, most of them are. That's why they're talking about rifles, not hand guns. Everyone wants a handgun in his pocket or purse.

 

[freyasman]

he second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

What is ridiculous about it?

The fact that you're asking that question illustrates your complete ignorance of the topic. You are making a fool of yourself.

Freyasman, you need to do a lot better than that. To me what I wrote makes perfect sense. If you want to change my mind you have to do something more than the usual insults.

I'm actually not trying to insult you, I'm trying to get you to stop embarrassing yourself by talking about something you don't have so much as a child's understanding of.

Tell me why or shut the hell up.

Shut the hell up?

Or what?

How are you going to make me shut up? You don't have any means of doing so, nor would you if you were standing right in front of me. You simply don't have any way of forcing me to do what you demand, just like the government has no way of enforcing their demands. You are somehow convinced that both you and they do, but it's a fallacy that will evaporate like that guy's head did, into a red mist I saw looking through the scope on my M14 back when, as soon as it comes up against any serious resistance.

Your opinion is foolish and ignorant. That you tried to represent it as fact, rather than just your opinion, is even more foolish. Talking shit when you have zero force you can project, is also foolish and ignorant, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a fool of yourself.

You are ignorant and impotent, and that is why I don't need to concern myself with changing your mind.

Then shut the fuck up about it. You've already said that and you still haven't explained what is wrong with my opinion on the 2nd Amendment. That is YOUR failing, not mine.

Wrong.
It is your responsibility to educate yourself. You are not a child, and I am not your daddy.


Go learn where you fucked up, or I'll just keep verbally spanking you until you do.

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

 

[freyasman]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

You are just going to keep embarrassing yourself, aren't you?

You're the one embarrassing yourself, by demonstrating that all you've got is put-downs and no good reasons for saying that what I've said about the 2nd isn't true.

Silly woman..... (smh)

 

[fncceo]

Thank goodness for guns ... otherwise, we'd still be English.

Like that's a bad thing....

A seriously bad thing ...

 

[fncceo]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

 

[OldLady]

It is your responsibility to educate yourself. You are not a child, and I am not your daddy.

It is your responsibility, in an argument, to back up your ideas with reasons. At least if you were being honest you would. You can't respond because you don't know shit about what you're talking about. You just don't like hearing me say the 2nd is an anachronism. Just another aggressive shit talker, like so many others.

 

[freyasman]

It is your responsibility to educate yourself. You are not a child, and I am not your daddy.

It is your responsibility, in an argument, to back up your ideas with reasons. At least if you were being honest you would. You can't respond because you don't know shit about what you're talking about. You just don't like hearing me say the 2nd is an anachronism. Just another aggressive shit talker, like so many others.

How many counter insurgency wars have you fought?
None right?

You don't know what you are talking about and you are embarrassing yourself in your ignorance.

 

[KGB]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The history and culture of the United States is nothing like that of other Western nations.

mine if the dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted on here...