Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[The Rabbi]

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

LMAO its official, you are losing it.

Then you will have no problem proving it then, will you?

Women are the fastest growing segment in the firearms market. This is in the trade publications and you'll recall I am a dealer.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction.

How many terrorist or random shootings have occurred in places where responsible gun owners were allowed to carry their guns, and would face no suspicion or paranoid reactions for doing so? A miniscule fraction.

 

[80zephyr]

Who are the fear mongers that everyone listened to?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

Nope. Those are words that the left SAY we use. We do no such thing.

Mark

Oh, I suppose there aren't lots of people on the right calling for Muslims to not be allowed to enter the US? I mean, TRUMP SAID IT and his supporters agreed with him. You don't do this, er.... rubbish.


Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

This was never said: ""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

"But his proposal was met with enthusiasm by many of his supporters, who showed their approval via social media as well as at his rally on Monday night."

""I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is," said 75-year-old Charlie Marzka of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

None of this was said, according to YOU.

Of course there are. That is a rational decision based on logical thinking. Its not because they "look evil". Those are the words of the leftist trying to disparage the right...nothing more.

Mark

It's about association. People see Arabic looking people and they see there is a problem, when no problem exists.

Muslim group: two imams pulled from plane bound for North Carolina

"An airline is investigating the removal of two imams from a flight headed to North Carolina, ostensibly because passengers felt uncomfortable with their presence of the pair -- both clad in Islamic attire."

This didn't happen either, did it?

And there are other instances of such things.

Of course there are other instances. Like the guy who DIDN'T report suspicious activity by the San Bernadino shooter because he didn't want to look like a racist.

I wonder how he feels about that now.

Mark

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

Hmm.

I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fetuses aren't people.

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

If you didn't use the comment to justify anything, why put it on the forum?

Because I'm not like you and I don't need to push an agenda every time I open my mouth. I say what's there. If someone is wrong, I tell them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

If you didn't use the comment to justify anything, why put it on the forum?

What? I used the comment to prove that the previous poster was wrong. Do you get it?

You used natural abortion to prove what? That abortion is OK because nature does it?

I use it to prove the person was wrong in posting what they posted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's about association. People see Arabic looking people and they see there is a problem, when no problem exists.

Muslim group: two imams pulled from plane bound for North Carolina

"An airline is investigating the removal of two imams from a flight headed to North Carolina, ostensibly because passengers felt uncomfortable with their presence of the pair -- both clad in Islamic attire."

This didn't happen either, did it?

And there are other instances of such things.

How is this connected to gun control?

Because we're talking about people going out and buying more guns because of a potential threat from Islamic militants.

 

[80zephyr]

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

If you didn't use the comment to justify anything, why put it on the forum?

Because I'm not like you and I don't need to push an agenda every time I open my mouth. I say what's there. If someone is wrong, I tell them.

So tell me, what was "wrong"?

Mark

 

[frigidweirdo]

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

Hmm.

I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.

You "intend to keep that option", so, if someone changes the law you'll become a terrorist then?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

If you didn't use the comment to justify anything, why put it on the forum?

Because I'm not like you and I don't need to push an agenda every time I open my mouth. I say what's there. If someone is wrong, I tell them.

So tell me, what was "wrong"?

Mark

I wrote that in my post. I'm not repeating myself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

Nope. Those are words that the left SAY we use. We do no such thing.

Mark

Oh, I suppose there aren't lots of people on the right calling for Muslims to not be allowed to enter the US? I mean, TRUMP SAID IT and his supporters agreed with him. You don't do this, er.... rubbish.


Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

This was never said: ""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

"But his proposal was met with enthusiasm by many of his supporters, who showed their approval via social media as well as at his rally on Monday night."

""I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is," said 75-year-old Charlie Marzka of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

None of this was said, according to YOU.

Of course there are. That is a rational decision based on logical thinking. Its not because they "look evil". Those are the words of the leftist trying to disparage the right...nothing more.

Mark

It's about association. People see Arabic looking people and they see there is a problem, when no problem exists.

Muslim group: two imams pulled from plane bound for North Carolina

"An airline is investigating the removal of two imams from a flight headed to North Carolina, ostensibly because passengers felt uncomfortable with their presence of the pair -- both clad in Islamic attire."

This didn't happen either, did it?

And there are other instances of such things.

Of course there are other instances. Like the guy who DIDN'T report suspicious activity by the San Bernadino shooter because he didn't want to look like a racist.

I wonder how he feels about that now.

Mark

Maybe he feels that hindsight is a *****.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

Hmm.

I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.

You "intend to keep that option", so, if someone changes the law you'll become a terrorist then?

No one has the authority to change the law, other than the American people through the amendment process.

If the law is arbitrarily changed outside of that process, I can guarantee there will be business between the public servants responsible and the American people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

Hmm.

I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.

You "intend to keep that option", so, if someone changes the law you'll become a terrorist then?

No one has the authority to change the law, other than the American people through the amendment process.

If the law is arbitrarily changed outside of that process, I can guarantee there will be business between the public servants responsible and the American people.

Well that depends what you think the 2A says.

The 2A is, first and foremost, a LIMIT on the power of the US govts.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons. The govts are therefore not allowed to prevent you from owning weapons. That doesn't mean they can't prevent you owning certain weapons.

The right to bear arms is insignificant in this case, as the right is merely the right to be in the militia. The Dick Act of 1902 sorted that out and basically made the right to bear arms a non-event in US politics anyway (with the exception of people who claim it's the right to carry arms around as you see fit).

Beyond ownership of arms there are plenty of ways, if you're being creative, of limiting arms in society.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The right to bear arms is insignificant in this case, as the right is merely the right to be in the militia ... Beyond ownership of arms there are plenty of ways, if you're being creative, of limiting arms in society.

So, go ahead.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

Hmm.

I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.

You "intend to keep that option", so, if someone changes the law you'll become a terrorist then?

No one has the authority to change the law, other than the American people through the amendment process.

If the law is arbitrarily changed outside of that process, I can guarantee there will be business between the public servants responsible and the American people.

This is ridiculous and ignorant.

The people have the authority to change laws through the political process, where their elected representatives are at liberty to enact, amend, or repeal laws at the behest of the people.

The 'amendment process' concerns solely amending the Constitution, having nothing to do with the issue of firearm regulatory policy, which is itself law, law that can be enacted, amended, or repealed through the political process reflecting the will of the people.

And when the people err, and enact measures believed to be repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence, those adversely effected are at liberty to file suit and seek relief in Federal court, and if indeed a measure is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, invalidated by the court.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted at the behest of the people that pass Constitutional muster in no way 'infringe' on the Second Amendment right, they are proper, just, and lawful measures having nothing to do with the 'amendment process.'

 

[80zephyr]

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

Hmm.

I buy guns because I can, and I intend to keep that option.

You "intend to keep that option", so, if someone changes the law you'll become a terrorist then?

No one has the authority to change the law, other than the American people through the amendment process.

If the law is arbitrarily changed outside of that process, I can guarantee there will be business between the public servants responsible and the American people.

This is ridiculous and ignorant.

The people have the authority to change laws through the political process, where their elected representatives are at liberty to enact, amend, or repeal laws at the behest of the people.

The 'amendment process' concerns solely amending the Constitution, having nothing to do with the issue of firearm regulatory policy, which is itself law, law that can be enacted, amended, or repealed through the political process reflecting the will of the people.

And when the people err, and enact measures believed to be repugnant to Constitutional jurisprudence, those adversely effected are at liberty to file suit and seek relief in Federal court, and if indeed a measure is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, invalidated by the court.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted at the behest of the people that pass Constitutional muster in no way 'infringe' on the Second Amendment right, they are proper, just, and lawful measures having nothing to do with the 'amendment process.'

Hmm. There is historical evidence to prove that the 14th Amendment did not provide for "anchor babies" yet the left insists a change has to be made constitutionally for a change to be made.

Is that also ridiculous and ignorant?

Mark

 

[Little-Acorn]

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons. The govts are therefore not allowed to prevent you from owning weapons. That doesn't mean they can't prevent you owning certain weapons.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

The 2nd amendment was written to make sure the government (ANY government) had no say at all in what weapons you could own and carry. They feared that a government given the tiniest bit of power to regulate anything having to do with people's weapons, would turn it into a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, and start twisting the "interpretation" of that power into more and more authrotiy to restrict and ban guns - just as the present government in thei country is doing. The Framers saw our paranoid gun-rights-haters coming a mile away.

Some people might object to the idea of government having no say. Though they'd be hard pressed to come up with a better scheme to reduce violence while keeping government at bay.

But pretending the 2nd doesn't say that at all, is silly to the point of being ridiculous.

In modern language: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL"

Lost in the politics of 'gun control' is the fact that there are solutions and measures that can be pursued having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms themselves.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL"

Lost in the politics of 'gun control' is the fact that there are solutions and measures that can be pursued having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms themselves.

There certainly are.

And getting rid of firearms regulations so that we can pursue those other measures, would be the first (and best) step toward finally doing something.

There's a pretty good chance that merely getting rid of them, would make significant improvements by itself. As ordinary people took the responsibility of going armed when they want to, trained to use it effectively, and made it much more dangerous for the terrorists, mass murderers etc. to commit their crimes.

 

[Centinel]

Because we're talking about people going out and buying more guns because of a potential threat from Islamic militants.

But what's the connection to gun control?