Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Uncensored2008]

Must take exception, Spoon. Fewer people, not "less".

By the way what's the effective range of a hammer? Could you, say, hide in the trunk of a Chevy and throw hammers through the trunk keyhole?

No, but you could hide behind the trunk of a Chevy in the dark, hit and kill someone without being detected, then slink away. Fire a gun and the whole city comes running.

Hammers are clearly too dangerous for the peasantry to have. Only certified carpenters or politicians can be trusted with them.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That right was clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

And how does a disarmed population exercise that God given right?

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

Now you need to answer my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers???

BTW, the only God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those God given rights were cruelly ripped away from 20 beautiful children by a weapon that should be banned.

It's called baby steps. They are trying to take certian firearms away then when they do that they'll start with other firearms and you'll be saying the same old shit

No one is calling for disarming the populace.

\
Of course, they can't come right out and take all firearms at once but do it slowly, and you'll be saying "No one is calling for disarming the populace." when the last firearm has been taken.
Coloroda is trying to take away pump shotguns
SHOTGUNS OF ALL FIREARMS..........

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe because you can't fix anything with an assault weapon?

I can't think of anything that would fix your attitude with greater efficiency....

"I dunno Bob, I was just using my AR-15 to drive a nail into the wall, and boom!"

False comparison. Like the car fatalities one, which I noticed has driven itself into the sunset...

IRONY ALERT....

 

[Pogo]

Gettin' behind on our reading there, Gumby? Doesn't compare to 35 million iPads, does it? Of course I only showed that TEN PAGES AGO, sometime last week, back here to be exact.

It pays to catch up on reading before you dig yourself in the same hole twice.

Here's the deal, you can't have it both ways. Either these evil "assault weapons" are selling a million units a year - leaving 40 million in the hands of Americans, as Slate claims, or they are rare and are of no consequence.

Since I go shooting regularly, which you don't, I know that 4 out of 5 people at the range have some sort of AR15 knock-off. (Not me, I'm a Mini-14 guy.) So the idea that a million units a year sold, going back to 1970, makes perfect sense to me. These things are more common than the iPad...

Look, you want to revoke civil rights, I get it. But the game that so-called "assault weapons" are unusual is absurd. Of the 200 million guns in this nation, about a quarter of them are what you of the left call assault type weapons.

My, that's a lot of bullshit to cover a hole

Here's what you posted again:

Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

(This was post #666, if it matters)

-- and you were off by a factor of (probably) nine.

I don't need to have it both ways or any ways; you trotted the fake numbers out, so you go down with 'em.

Now you try to move the goalposts; there was nothing up there about 'civil rights' or 'assault weapons'. Your strawman fall down.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gettin' behind on our reading there, Gumby? Doesn't compare to 35 million iPads, does it? Of course I only showed that TEN PAGES AGO, sometime last week, back here to be exact.

It pays to catch up on reading before you dig yourself in the same hole twice.

Here's the deal, you can't have it both ways. Either these evil "assault weapons" are selling a million units a year - leaving 40 million in the hands of Americans, as Slate claims, or they are rare and are of no consequence.

Since I go shooting regularly, which you don't, I know that 4 out of 5 people at the range have some sort of AR15 knock-off. (Not me, I'm a Mini-14 guy.) So the idea that a million units a year sold, going back to 1970, makes perfect sense to me. These things are more common than the iPad...

Look, you want to revoke civil rights, I get it. But the game that so-called "assault weapons" are unusual is absurd. Of the 200 million guns in this nation, about a quarter of them are what you of the left call assault type weapons.

My, that's a lot of bullshit to cover a hole

Here's what you posted again:

Americans have more AR15's than they do iPads.

(This was post #666, if it matters)

-- and you were off by a factor of (probably) nine.

I don't need to have it both ways or any ways; you trotted the fake numbers out, so you go down with 'em.

Now you try to move the goalposts; there was nothing up there about 'civil rights' or 'assault weapons'. Your strawman fall down.

Everyone of my friends has two, and some even have 3. either 5.56 or 308

 

[Uncensored2008]

My, that's a lot of bullshit to cover a hole

ROFL

Dood, give it up.

Here's what you posted again:

-- and you were off by a factor of (probably) nine.

Not according the leftist hate site Slate...

I don't need to have it both ways or any ways; you trotted the fake numbers out, so you go down with 'em.

ROFL

Not just against civil rights, but dull witted to boot?

Yer the hole package, sparky...

Now you try to move the goalposts; there was nothing up there about 'civil rights' or 'assault weapons'. Your strawman fall down.

This is entirely about civil rights, and the desire of you of the left to revoke them. Slate says a million assault rifles a year, are they lying? I did a quick rounding to 1970 and figured that works out to about 40 million AR type guns out there.

 

[Pogo]

My, that's a lot of bullshit to cover a hole

ROFL

Dood, give it up.

Here's what you posted again:

-- and you were off by a factor of (probably) nine.

Not according the leftist hate site Slate...

I don't need to have it both ways or any ways; you trotted the fake numbers out, so you go down with 'em.

ROFL

Not just against civil rights, but dull witted to boot?

Yer the hole package, sparky...

Now you try to move the goalposts; there was nothing up there about 'civil rights' or 'assault weapons'. Your strawman fall down.

This is entirely about civil rights, and the desire of you of the left to revoke them. Slate says a million assault rifles a year, are they lying? I did a quick rounding to 1970 and figured that works out to about 40 million AR type guns out there.

Do you not even understand the English in your own posts?

Once again, here's what you posted from Slate:
{from 1986 to 2007, at least 1,626,525 AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles were produced and not exported from the United States. Overstreet suggested that you could use trends in NICS background checks to project future sales of AR-15-style rifles. As of Nov. 30, 2012, the total number of NICS background checks increased by 50.4 percent since the end of 2007. If the number of AR-15 rifles increased similarly, then that means there are at least 2,446,294 AR-15 rifles currently available in the United States.}

That's a total for 21 years -- not per year.

But guess what Gomer-- I already had my number (post 688) from the same article you used. If you kept reading you would have found this:

{Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today.}

Same source.

Compared to 33 million iPads, that's again, around 8.8 iPads for every one AR-15.

I'm gonna guess that you were using eight-tenths of an iPad to get your figures? Just a hunch.
In any case, neither device has anything to do with "civil rigths". Although I can't wait to see what article backs this one up.

 

[Bfgrn]

And how does a disarmed population exercise that God given right?

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

Now you need to answer my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers???

BTW, the only God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those God given rights were cruelly ripped away from 20 beautiful children by a weapon that should be banned.

How would answering the (overall) Purpose of the Federalist Papers contribute to the discussion of the Second Amendment? It won't, it's a distraction you're trying to make to divert from the argument.

In bold, you think those are the ONLY God given rights, first its Life, Liberty and PROPERTY, if you want to get into John Locke:

John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Also, there are MANY MORE RIGHTS than just those.

Now tell me, since you you all arguing to DISARM the people of MILITARY and NEAR MILITARY grade MODERN weapons, how are we supposed to resist a tyrannical government once DISARMED of those MODERN MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS. Second Amendment implies PARITY OF ARMS.

Quantum Windbag and Rabbi, join the fun on this, he's completely trapped in the corner, checkmate in four moves.

Your problem (among MANY) is that you are totally obtuse to what Hamilton, Madison and Jay were arguing FOR in the Federalist Papers. There is a hint in the title...to create a Federal government. In Federalist 28, Hamilton is arguing FOR a standing army.

Thomas Jefferson made a conscious decision to choose 'the pursuit of happiness' over Locke's 'property'. Your argument is meaningless and just shows how your mind is controlled by insecurity (trying to show off the little bit you know). I'm not impressed.

If you honestly believe an AR-15 will allow you to take on the government, you should NOT be allowed to own even a pea shooter for 2 reasons; 1) you are mentally unstable, delusional, and probably severely RETARDED, 2) you could possibly place your pea brain in the straw and fire it where it can't be found.

The second amendment does NOT imply a PARITY OF ARMS. It was created to replace a standing army in peacetime and to protect our people and protect our government.

Thanks to Pogo for this PERFECT depiction of you right wing retards:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Number one it IS a dependent clause because that's simply what grammar calls it (duh) and number two, I've never mentioned "regulating guns", here or anywhere else.
Nor is it what this thread is about.

Who da fool now, beeeeyaatch?

Truthfully, grammar calls it a subordinate clause.

You keep trying to hide behind your lack of honesty, but you aren't fooling anyone. All you have to do to prove you are not in favor of regulating guns is make a single post speaking out against that position, but all your posts are defending the idea of regulating guns. You aren't fooling anyone.

I guess that makes you the fool.

Bite me.

I'm not here for "gun control", and that's been on the record since I got here. You go find a single post where I called for "gun control", and I will print it out, set it on fire and eat it, flames a-blazin', and post the video. ******* lying asshole.

"Subordinate/dependent" - same thing. The main statement depends on the qualification of the subordinate clause. Learn to read.

​

You are not here for gun control, it is merely a coincidence that every argument you make about gun control is in favor of it.

By the way, you really need to unlearn all that stuff they taught you in school about subordinate clauses always being restrictive clauses. In fact, you should start by looking up restrictive and non restrictive clauses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That right was clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.

And how does a disarmed population exercise that God given right?

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

Now you need to answer my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers???

BTW, the only God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those God given rights were cruelly ripped away from 20 beautiful children by a weapon that should be banned.

You really need to stop lying, I have already proven, more than once, that some people are actually trying to disarm people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have a lot of firearms
[ame=http://youtu.be/CJXwGWAGXmI]Gun Control - Mr. Feshamon (Official Music Video) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

Truthfully, grammar calls it a subordinate clause.

You keep trying to hide behind your lack of honesty, but you aren't fooling anyone. All you have to do to prove you are not in favor of regulating guns is make a single post speaking out against that position, but all your posts are defending the idea of regulating guns. You aren't fooling anyone.

I guess that makes you the fool.

Bite me.

I'm not here for "gun control", and that's been on the record since I got here. You go find a single post where I called for "gun control", and I will print it out, set it on fire and eat it, flames a-blazin', and post the video. ******* lying asshole.

"Subordinate/dependent" - same thing. The main statement depends on the qualification of the subordinate clause. Learn to read.

​

You are not here for gun control, it is merely a coincidence that every argument you make about gun control is in favor of it.

By the way, you really need to unlearn all that stuff they taught you in school about subordinate clauses always being restrictive clauses. In fact, you should start by looking up restrictive and non restrictive clauses.

My printer's still on. So.... where's that evidence?
-- or shall I take this as a tacit confession that you couldn't find any and thus were wr.... were wro.... what is the word...

You might unlearn your own assumptions and examine when I'm contesting a point, as opposed to when I'm contesting bad logic. Which is most of the time, as e.g. all day here today with the exception of the fuzzy iPad numbers -- which by themselves make no point anyway.

Reading is fun. We'll get to da mental part later.

@ Bfgrn: credit where due: I got that image from the same military friend who also gave me the story this thread is originally based on.

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe because you can't fix anything with an assault weapon?

I can't think of anything that would fix your attitude with greater efficiency....

"I dunno Bob, I was just using my AR-15 to drive a nail into the wall, and boom!"

False comparison. Like the car fatalities one, which I noticed has driven itself into the sunset...

IRONY ALERT....

With you right wing scum there is always that underlying threat of violence. It is the tool of the insecure and adolescent mind.

VIOLENCE THREAT ALERT

 

[Bfgrn]

And how does a disarmed population exercise that God given right?

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

Now you need to answer my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers???

BTW, the only God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those God given rights were cruelly ripped away from 20 beautiful children by a weapon that should be banned.

You really need to stop lying, I have already proven, more than once, that some people are actually trying to disarm people.

You have proven NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You found a 'blogger' who wrote an article saying that the gun nuts can't even discuss reasonable gun sense. So maybe we should call for a ban on all weapons. THEN, maybe the gun clingers would come to the table.

You right wing retards need to sign up for a Civics class. You don't know shit about America.

 

[Steve Hanson]

The only myths about guns going around is how deadly and dangerous they are. Look at the amount of guns and the amount of gun murders and it's a pitance. For something that does have the ability to kill, not a lot of killing is done by the vast majority of guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bite me.

I'm not here for "gun control", and that's been on the record since I got here. You go find a single post where I called for "gun control", and I will print it out, set it on fire and eat it, flames a-blazin', and post the video. ******* lying asshole.

"Subordinate/dependent" - same thing. The main statement depends on the qualification of the subordinate clause. Learn to read.

​

You are not here for gun control, it is merely a coincidence that every argument you make about gun control is in favor of it.

By the way, you really need to unlearn all that stuff they taught you in school about subordinate clauses always being restrictive clauses. In fact, you should start by looking up restrictive and non restrictive clauses.

My printer's still on. So.... where's that evidence?
-- or shall I take this as a tacit confession that you couldn't find any and thus were wr.... were wro.... what is the word...

You might unlearn your own assumptions and examine when I'm contesting a point, as opposed to when I'm contesting bad logic. Which is most of the time, as e.g. all day here today with the exception of the fuzzy iPad numbers -- which by themselves make no point anyway.

Reading is fun. We'll get to da mental part later.

@ Bfgrn: credit where due: I got that image from the same military friend who also gave me the story this thread is originally based on.

Feel free to prove me wrong by making an argument opposed to universal background checks, limiting magazine capacity, or banning weapons based on cosmetic attachments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

Now you need to answer my question. What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers???

BTW, the only God given rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those God given rights were cruelly ripped away from 20 beautiful children by a weapon that should be banned.

You really need to stop lying, I have already proven, more than once, that some people are actually trying to disarm people.

You have proven NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You found a 'blogger' who wrote an article saying that the gun nuts can't even discuss reasonable gun sense. So maybe we should call for a ban on all weapons. THEN, maybe the gun clingers would come to the table.

You right wing retards need to sign up for a Civics class. You don't know shit about America.

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Bfgrn]

IOW, you don't think there is a necessity to study all the debates, writings and ruminations of the authors of the Constitution in order to actually study the Constitution itself.

You can't build a house without a foundation...

It is interesting but not necessary or essential. But, what IS essential is what is written in the Constitution and ratified by the authors. The rest is opinions.

I can clearly see every penny the tax payers spent on your education was a colossal waste of funds better used elsewhere. When looking for the definition or meaning of something someone else wrote, don't you think it's a good idea to actaully see what that person meant by what they wrote. If every little thing was added to the Constitution, as you are seeming to imply, our Constitution would look like the obamacare bill, 20,000 pages of nonsense. Back in those days our Politicians didn't have the time to write crap like that, they had lives to lead and livings to earn, nor did they have the inclination to obfusate like our professional politicians do today. Cleary and simple put; A well regulated Militia (which is an armed citizenry made up of ALL citizens save a few politicians), being necessary to the security of a free State, (secure from the tyranny of a centralized govt) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,(keep weapons equal to those of the military) shall not be infringed (not be f*&^%d with EVER, or at all by said govt). How do I know that the meanings in parenthesis are accurate? Simple, I looked to the words of those that wrote the Amendment and voted on the Amendment to see what they meant.

Unlike you, I received an excellent liberal public education. That is why I am so much smarter and intelligent than you. Let me start your education pea brain. I can't give you too much to assimilate because a pea doesn't hold much. I'll try to keep it at your adolescent cognitive level.

What keeps tyranny in check in America is not guns or the 2nd amendment, it is the RULE OF LAW. "Ours is a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws, not men"- John Adams

The history of mankind was dominated by what is called the 'divine right of kings'. Men and women were ruled by kings who claimed the right to rule, who changed the law to suit their every whim.

Our founding fathers, who were the most enlightened liberal thinkers of their time considered that intolerable. They envisioned a nation established on the rule of duly enacted laws ... not the conceited edicts of arrogant tyrants.

Humanity had lived under the rule of one form of king or another for thousands of years until that fateful day in Philadelphia, when wise, courageous men gathered on the Fourth of July 1776 to institute a new form of government whereby the people would rule themselves under law.

America was born, and The Rule of Law was made our highest maxim. Not without many problems was America born. Not without mistakes. Not without errors of the most horrible kind. Yet America was born, and there appeared upon the face of this war-worn planet a new hope. Hope for peace to come. Hope for the day when right will conquer might. When truth will overcome deceit.

The Rule of Law lives in the hearts of free men and women everywhere. The maxim states that men should not be trusted to rule others unless their rule is tempered by fixed laws that prevent tyranny, laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak.The Rule of Law is what our heroes died for in past wars for liberty. The Rule of Law is worthy of our highest efforts as a people. This principle that laws should govern us instead of men -- laws of our own making and not the cruel edicts of tyrant dictators or divine right decrees of kings -- is the bedrock of human justice, the philosophical cornerstone of these United States, and the foundation of hope for all mankind.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

 

[GuyPinestra]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gun...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Googled 'gun confiscation proposal' for you, Bfgrn...

It seems you haven't been keeping up...

 

[Bfgrn]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gun...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Googled 'gun confiscation proposal' for you, Bfgrn...

It seems you haven't been keeping up...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

It seems you are too retarded to read. I will say it again.

No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace. That is your paranoid, polarized dysfunctional small brain overwhelmed by chicken little fear.

The right wing articles your query found are states trying to implement an assault weapons ban and a clip size restriction. No one is calling for disarming the populace. Nothing even close to disarming the populace.