The Real Effort Over Gun Control

[Nosmo King]

You know, how does one gain this level of stupidity I wonder?

Do you even know what tyranny means?

Tyranny is the oppression of people. Just like Southern racist idiots oppressed African American citizens.

In large part because those idiots disarmed African American citizens. Just like you want to do.

The Civil Rights Movement was a non-violent movement. The violence came from individuals with racist ideas and firepower.

 

[eflatminor]

What on earth can possibly justify assault weapons?

The fact criminals have them? Unless you'd PREFER to be at a disadvantage against armed criminals, which would be rather odd choice I think.

More justification? Okay. I hunt with AR15 rifles. Perfect for hogs and varmints.

Even more justification? Sure. It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

A law that would make the sale, manufacture and distribution of assault weapons to private citizens also effects the criminal's access to them.

History suggests otherwise. Other countries, states here in the US, and cities across the nation that have banned various types of firearms and/or accessories have not only failed to keep them from the hands of criminals, their rates of violent and gun-related crime INCREASED following their bans. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

So again, you're only putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. ******* insane.

Once this scourge of weaponry has been blotted out, neither criminal nor redneck will be able to wield them again.

Has never happened in the past, not even in countries with a virtual ban on civilian owned firearms. But maybe you have the magic beans that will make criminals obey the law???

And were there no wold boar killed before the invention of the assault rifle?

There were never as many wild boar as their are today. You said there was no justification for an AR platform. You're wrong.

And you have no "right" to one either.

The bill of rights proves you wrong on that one. Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

They are weapons built for war. The second amendment protects you from tyranny by calling loudly for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not your drinking buddies, a couple of pick up trucks and AR-15s.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. But if it would make you feel better, I'm happy to call my fellow firearm owners a militia.

In the mean time, you're free to disarm yourself, cowing the corner of a gun free zone and hope those criminals and crazies will abide by the rules. Good luck.

 

[eflatminor]

Tyranny is the oppression of people. Just like Southern racist idiots oppressed African American citizens.

In large part because those idiots disarmed African American citizens. Just like you want to do.

The Civil Rights Movement was a non-violent movement.

That's called a non sequitur. While you're right about that civil rights movement, it does not change the fact that slavery and oppression of Blacks required those folks first be disarmed. It worked then. It won't work again.

The violence came from individuals with racist ideas and firepower.

True. The same individuals that first disarmed their enemy. Again, just like you're advocating.

 

[Nosmo King]

The fact criminals have them? Unless you'd PREFER to be at a disadvantage against armed criminals, which would be rather odd choice I think.

More justification? Okay. I hunt with AR15 rifles. Perfect for hogs and varmints.

Even more justification? Sure. It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

A law that would make the sale, manufacture and distribution of assault weapons to private citizens also effects the criminal's access to them.

History suggests otherwise. Other countries, states here in the US, and cities across the nation that have banned various types of firearms and/or accessories have not only failed to keep them from the hands of criminals, their rates of violent and gun-related crime INCREASED following their bans. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

So again, you're only putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. ******* insane.



Has never happened in the past, not even in countries with a virtual ban on civilian owned firearms. But maybe you have the magic beans that will make criminals obey the law???



There were never as many wild boar as their are today. You said there was no justification for an AR platform. You're wrong.

And you have no "right" to one either.

The bill of rights proves you wrong on that one. Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

They are weapons built for war. The second amendment protects you from tyranny by calling loudly for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not your drinking buddies, a couple of pick up trucks and AR-15s.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. But if it would make you feel better, I'm happy to call my fellow firearm owners a militia.

In the mean time, you're free to disarm yourself, cowing the corner of a gun free zone and hope those criminals and crazies will abide by the rules. Good luck.

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons? And you seem to fear attack by wild boar as a more plausible threat than massive massacres in theaters, schools, temples and our streets. Do you think that's either reasonable or responsible?

And just calling your buddies a militia hardly comes to the threshold of the constitutional phrase "well regulated", does it?

 

[Nosmo King]

In large part because those idiots disarmed African American citizens. Just like you want to do.

The Civil Rights Movement was a non-violent movement.

That's called a non sequitur. While you're right about that civil rights movement, it does not change the fact that slavery and oppression of Blacks required those folks first be disarmed. It worked then. It won't work again.

The violence came from individuals with racist ideas and firepower.

True. The same individuals that first disarmed their enemy. Again, just like you're advocating.

I cire the Civil rights movement as a legitimate response to tyranny. African Americans, to their credit, did not resort to armed conflict the way some guns nuts would. They took the responsible course, not the reckless one. Tyranny was suppressed WITHOUT resorting to open warfare. Americans would not support the slaughter some reactionary gun nuts seem to think is necessary to maintain freedom.

The price of tactics using assault weapons is massacre of innocents. What would you judge as worse: perceived political tyranny met by assault weapons or the real tragic violence assault weapons visits on innocent people?

 

[eflatminor]

A law that would make the sale, manufacture and distribution of assault weapons to private citizens also effects the criminal's access to them.

History suggests otherwise. Other countries, states here in the US, and cities across the nation that have banned various types of firearms and/or accessories have not only failed to keep them from the hands of criminals, their rates of violent and gun-related crime INCREASED following their bans. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

So again, you're only putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. ******* insane.



Has never happened in the past, not even in countries with a virtual ban on civilian owned firearms. But maybe you have the magic beans that will make criminals obey the law???



There were never as many wild boar as their are today. You said there was no justification for an AR platform. You're wrong.



The bill of rights proves you wrong on that one. Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

They are weapons built for war. The second amendment protects you from tyranny by calling loudly for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not your drinking buddies, a couple of pick up trucks and AR-15s.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. But if it would make you feel better, I'm happy to call my fellow firearm owners a militia.

In the mean time, you're free to disarm yourself, cowing the corner of a gun free zone and hope those criminals and crazies will abide by the rules. Good luck.

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

Whether stolen or purchased on the black market, either from the tens of millions already in existence or illegally imported, you cannot prevent law breakers from obtaining firearms. It's not exactly rocket science to build a firearm...and a magazine is nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can ban whatever you like, the criminals will ALWAYS have what you keep only from law abiding citizens.

And you seem to fear attack by wild boar as a more plausible threat than massive massacres in theaters, schools, temples and our streets. Do you think that's either reasonable or responsible?

Here's the rub...your ban will NOT prevent crazy motherfuckers from doing crazy things. The only way to stop this assholes is a good guy with AT LEAST equal firepower. Your laws ensure the good guys are at a tactical disadvantage. Insane.

It has nothing to do with comparing hunting to massacres. You want to stop the massacres, the worst thing you can do is restrict law abiding citizens ability to do so.

And just calling your buddies a militia hardly comes to the threshold of the constitutional phrase "well regulated", does it?

Well regulated means well armed. We are well armed because those that would test our inalienable right to self defense are also armed. Again, you're free to sing Kumbaya if that's what YOU think will work.

 

[eflatminor]

The Civil Rights Movement was a non-violent movement.

That's called a non sequitur. While you're right about that civil rights movement, it does not change the fact that slavery and oppression of Blacks required those folks first be disarmed. It worked then. It won't work again.

The violence came from individuals with racist ideas and firepower.

True. The same individuals that first disarmed their enemy. Again, just like you're advocating.

I cire the Civil rights movement as a legitimate response to tyranny. African Americans, to their credit, did not resort to armed conflict the way some guns nuts would. They took the responsible course, not the reckless one. Tyranny was suppressed WITHOUT resorting to open warfare.

Perhaps had they not been disarmed, they would have never had to endure tyranny in the first place. That IS the idea behind the 2nd amendment.

Americans would not support the slaughter some reactionary gun nuts seem to think is necessary to maintain freedom.

The idea is that nobody has to resort to slaughtering anyone...because we know the tyrants know we're armed.

The price of tactics using assault weapons is massacre of innocents.

Unless you can un-invent firearms, this statement shows just how ignorant you are to the reality of criminals. It's really simple: They don't obey the law.

What would you judge as worse: perceived political tyranny met by assault weapons or the real tragic violence assault weapons visits on innocent people?

Worse yet, an inadequately armed populace at the mercy of tyrants, crazy motherfuckers, and criminal thugs. Ain't gonna happen, not in this country.

 

[Nosmo King]

History suggests otherwise. Other countries, states here in the US, and cities across the nation that have banned various types of firearms and/or accessories have not only failed to keep them from the hands of criminals, their rates of violent and gun-related crime INCREASED following their bans. So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

So again, you're only putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. ******* insane.



Has never happened in the past, not even in countries with a virtual ban on civilian owned firearms. But maybe you have the magic beans that will make criminals obey the law???



There were never as many wild boar as their are today. You said there was no justification for an AR platform. You're wrong.



The bill of rights proves you wrong on that one. Just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?



The Supreme Court disagrees with you. But if it would make you feel better, I'm happy to call my fellow firearm owners a militia.

In the mean time, you're free to disarm yourself, cowing the corner of a gun free zone and hope those criminals and crazies will abide by the rules. Good luck.

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

Whether stolen or purchased on the black market, either from the tens of millions already in existence or illegally imported, you cannot prevent law breakers from obtaining firearms. It's not exactly rocket science to build a firearm...and a magazine is nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can ban whatever you like, the criminals will ALWAYS have what you keep only from law abiding citizens.

And you seem to fear attack by wild boar as a more plausible threat than massive massacres in theaters, schools, temples and our streets. Do you think that's either reasonable or responsible?

Here's the rub...your ban will NOT prevent crazy motherfuckers from doing crazy things. The only way to stop this assholes is a good guy with AT LEAST equal firepower. Your laws ensure the good guys are at a tactical disadvantage. Insane.

It has nothing to do with comparing hunting to massacres. You want to stop the massacres, the worst thing you can do is restrict law abiding citizens ability to do so.

And just calling your buddies a militia hardly comes to the threshold of the constitutional phrase "well regulated", does it?

Well regulated means well armed. We are well armed because those that would test our inalienable right to self defense are also armed. Again, you're free to sing Kumbaya if that's what YOU think will work.

We must take "mass" out of "mass shootings". What makes "mass" shootings possible? The assault weapon. America suffers more "mass" shootings than any other country. Why? We have more assault weapons in the hands of people other than "well regulated militia" than any other country. There simply is no justification for assault weapons. None. None at all.

We have to start to get such weapons off our streets. They belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Well regulated DOES NOT MEAN WELL ARMED. It means WELL REGULATED! Written at a time the best armed soldiers could fire three aimed shots per minute, the second amendment includes the salient phrase "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" It's high time we took that advise and rid ourselves of the scourge of assault weapons.

We do not extinguish fires with gasoline. Putting arms in everyone's hands to prevent gun violence is as nonsensical as a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline.

 

[eflatminor]

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

Whether stolen or purchased on the black market, either from the tens of millions already in existence or illegally imported, you cannot prevent law breakers from obtaining firearms. It's not exactly rocket science to build a firearm...and a magazine is nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can ban whatever you like, the criminals will ALWAYS have what you keep only from law abiding citizens.



Here's the rub...your ban will NOT prevent crazy motherfuckers from doing crazy things. The only way to stop this assholes is a good guy with AT LEAST equal firepower. Your laws ensure the good guys are at a tactical disadvantage. Insane.

It has nothing to do with comparing hunting to massacres. You want to stop the massacres, the worst thing you can do is restrict law abiding citizens ability to do so.

And just calling your buddies a militia hardly comes to the threshold of the constitutional phrase "well regulated", does it?

Well regulated means well armed. We are well armed because those that would test our inalienable right to self defense are also armed. Again, you're free to sing Kumbaya if that's what YOU think will work.

We must take "mass" out of "mass shootings".

Again, restricting firearms to law abiding citizens will NOT accomplish this goal. It will only hinder the ability to respond to a armed criminal, be it a mass shooting, a home invasion, or a thug willing to kill a store clerk.

What makes "mass" shootings possible? The assault weapon. America suffers more "mass" shootings than any other country. Why? We have more assault weapons in the hands of people other than "well regulated militia" than any other country.

First, we're FAR from the only country to experience mass killings. The worst examples of which were NOT in America. It's also worth noting that mass killings are on the DECLINE in America, with far fewer each decade. The peak for mass killings in America? 1929. Fact.

Also, it's entirely possible to kill lots and lots of people without a so called assault weapon. People been doing it for thousands of years.

There simply is no justification for assault weapons. None. None at all.

You've already been proven wrong on that one. I understand you WISH they were never invented, but this is the real world. As such, criminals will have these weapons no matter what you attempt to ban. It makes no sense to give them an edge against good people.

We have to start to get such weapons off our streets. They belong in the hands of well regulated militias.

Been tried here in America. Didn't work. Been tried in many other countries, including those that virtually banned ALL civilian firearm ownership. Didn't work there either. In fact, violent crime increased and mass killings continue to occur.

Well regulated DOES NOT MEAN WELL ARMED. It means WELL REGULATED! Written at a time the best armed soldiers could fire three aimed shots per minute, the second amendment includes the salient phrase "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

I would agree with you, but you're wrong. Supreme court settled the issue. Sucks for the tyrants and gun grabbers, good for liberty.

It's high time we took that advise and rid ourselves of the scourge of assault weapons.

Back to la la land I see...

We do not extinguish fires with gasoline. Putting arms in everyone's hands to prevent gun violence is as nonsensical as a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline

So when you're cowering in the corner of a gun free zone as the crazy ************ is shooting innocent victim after victim, and a guy with a semi auto pistol takes out his sidearm to stop him, you gonna lay that asinine analogy on him...or will you be thankful someone saved your ass?

Either way, I really don't care. You go unarmed. The rest of us will remain prepared.

 

[Nosmo King]

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

Whether stolen or purchased on the black market, either from the tens of millions already in existence or illegally imported, you cannot prevent law breakers from obtaining firearms. It's not exactly rocket science to build a firearm...and a magazine is nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can ban whatever you like, the criminals will ALWAYS have what you keep only from law abiding citizens.



Here's the rub...your ban will NOT prevent crazy motherfuckers from doing crazy things. The only way to stop this assholes is a good guy with AT LEAST equal firepower. Your laws ensure the good guys are at a tactical disadvantage. Insane.

It has nothing to do with comparing hunting to massacres. You want to stop the massacres, the worst thing you can do is restrict law abiding citizens ability to do so.



Well regulated means well armed. We are well armed because those that would test our inalienable right to self defense are also armed. Again, you're free to sing Kumbaya if that's what YOU think will work.

We must take "mass" out of "mass shootings".

Again, restricting firearms to law abiding citizens will NOT accomplish this goal. It will only hinder the ability to respond to a armed criminal, be it a mass shooting, a home invasion, or a thug willing to kill a store clerk.



First, we're FAR from the only country to experience mass killings. The worst examples of which were NOT in America. It's also worth noting that mass killings are on the DECLINE in America, with far fewer each decade. The peak for mass killings in America? 1929. Fact.

Also, it's entirely possible to kill lots and lots of people without a so called assault weapon. People been doing it for thousands of years.



You've already been proven wrong on that one. I understand you WISH they were never invented, but this is the real world. As such, criminals will have these weapons no matter what you attempt to ban. It makes no sense to give them an edge against good people.



Been tried here in America. Didn't work. Been tried in many other countries, including those that virtually banned ALL civilian firearm ownership. Didn't work there either. In fact, violent crime increased and mass killings continue to occur.



I would agree with you, but you're wrong. Supreme court settled the issue. Sucks for the tyrants and gun grabbers, good for liberty.

It's high time we took that advise and rid ourselves of the scourge of assault weapons.

Back to la la land I see...

We do not extinguish fires with gasoline. Putting arms in everyone's hands to prevent gun violence is as nonsensical as a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline

So when you're cowering in the corner of a gun free zone as the crazy ************ is shooting innocent victim after victim, and a guy with a semi auto pistol takes out his sidearm to stop him, you gonna lay that asinine analogy on him...or will you be thankful someone saved your ass?

Either way, I really don't care. You go unarmed. The rest of us will remain prepared.

You love to say things like "back to la la land" as is you are completely satisfied with living in Columbine or Aurora or New Town. Well, I'm not satisfied with living in a nation so under the allure of gun violence that some propose more gun violence to stop it. Most Americans want this cycle of killing to stop. Most Americans are not under some esoteric delusion that because the second amendment says "not infringed" we must take it as a death sentence or the 'price" of freedom.

Assault weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Not a gaggle of idiots with fear motivating them about some perceived tyranny. Tyranny exists. The tyranny of the marginal thinker, the reactionary, the self styled Rambo who does not recognize the deadly consequence of his adolescent mindset.

Since there is no justification for assault weapons, there must be an outright ban on them and it must start today. No one should have assault weapons. Criminals, thugs, private citizens. We must sweep them from our streets, prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale and possession for our own good.

Let the tyrants who insist we must have them in our midst argue their case before the parents of the victims of such weapons. Let those gun nut tyrants explain the virtue of a weapon designed for war in the hands of private citizens. It's a loosing case, as common sense and logic cannot be brought to the defense of war weapons.

In the fog and confusion of a mass shooting, the last thing needed would be more bullets flying around innocent people. If you actually believe that more guns would prevent mass shootings, why did an assailant manage to wound four with six shots while in the midst of an armed cadre? John Hinckley wounded four, including the President of the United States. That president was surrounded by Secret Service and District of Columbia Police officers, all armed and proficient in firearms of all sorts. Yet all those guns did nothing to prevent Hinckley from wounding four. Hinckley was a private citizen with a gun.

 

[Pogo]

If Chicago bans assault weapons within the city limits of Chicago, yet Indiana permits the sale and use of assault weapons, does that mean that Chicago's actions are ineffective? Probably. But if a National ban is instituted, where are the criminals, the massive hoards of criminals you fear more than public massacres, getting their weapons?

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

Whether stolen or purchased on the black market, either from the tens of millions already in existence or illegally imported, you cannot prevent law breakers from obtaining firearms. It's not exactly rocket science to build a firearm...and a magazine is nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can ban whatever you like, the criminals will ALWAYS have what you keep only from law abiding citizens.



Here's the rub...your ban will NOT prevent crazy motherfuckers from doing crazy things. The only way to stop this assholes is a good guy with AT LEAST equal firepower. Your laws ensure the good guys are at a tactical disadvantage. Insane.

It has nothing to do with comparing hunting to massacres. You want to stop the massacres, the worst thing you can do is restrict law abiding citizens ability to do so.

And just calling your buddies a militia hardly comes to the threshold of the constitutional phrase "well regulated", does it?

Well regulated means well armed. We are well armed because those that would test our inalienable right to self defense are also armed. Again, you're free to sing Kumbaya if that's what YOU think will work.

We must take "mass" out of "mass shootings". What makes "mass" shootings possible? The assault weapon. America suffers more "mass" shootings than any other country. Why? We have more assault weapons in the hands of people other than "well regulated militia" than any other country. There simply is no justification for assault weapons. None. None at all.

We have to start to get such weapons off our streets. They belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Well regulated DOES NOT MEAN WELL ARMED. It means WELL REGULATED! Written at a time the best armed soldiers could fire three aimed shots per minute, the second amendment includes the salient phrase "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" It's high time we took that advise and rid ourselves of the scourge of assault weapons.

We do not extinguish fires with gasoline. Putting arms in everyone's hands to prevent gun violence is as nonsensical as a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline.

Well said. I'm gonna steal that metaphor real soon too.

 

[jtpr312]

I'm crushed, this coming from a self-admitted racist who tramps around in a superman suit. Crushed, I tell ya.
I also noticed you have no answer.

That's OK. I'll let you in on the secret: there isn't an answer.
You're welcome.

Lol, may I once again point out to you that Superman does not start with the letters JC moron. As for your answer, you being a moron, I'll try to take that into account and explain it to you as simply as possible. BEFORE there was ever even ONE firearm in this world, predatory human beings preyed upon weaker human beings, using their fists, rocks and sticks beating them, raping them, robbing them and enslaving them. Go figure, tens of thousands of years of the weak being helpless in the face of the strong and predatory before the invention of the firearm. Like I said, you're even dumber than I thought you were, and believe me, I thought you were blazingly stupid even before this statement.

Thanks. Having read your knuckledragger deep thoughts on race, I can only take this as the highest compliment. I'd return in kind but that would be dishonest.

Considering the innate prejudice with which you hold other humans in contempt (sorry, Super-prejudice from the planet Krypton), no other points are even worth dignifying.

Lol. So we agree then, your statement was ridiculously stupid.

 

[jtpr312]

To those who believe that we need guns to "fight tyranny":

What ever do you mean by that? A gaggle of idiots with assault rifles slung across their shoulders IS tyranny, not the defenders against it. The second amendment calls LOUDLY for a well regulated militia. That's where assault weapons belong, not on the streets.

If you want to defend against some perceived tyranny, join the National Guard or the State Police. These folks are the real defenders against tyranny. They have proven it. It was National Guardsmen who protected Civil Rights marchers against the tyranny of idiot racists.

Do you see tyranny today? If so, where? because I believe that most of sane America is pretty much satisfied, except for the tyranny of the extremist who holds the view that he has some warped "right" to hold aa assault rifle while other nuts tear up schools, theaters, temples and our streets with, guess what, ASSAULT RIFLES!

These weapons have NO PLACE in our society. They need to be banned forever. The only tyranny I see is the tyranny of the gun nut who insists we must suffer the deadly consequences of assault weapons as a price for his 'freedom'.

You know, how does one gain this level of stupidity I wonder?

Do you even know what tyranny means?

Tyranny is the oppression of people. Just like Southern racist idiots oppressed African American citizens. How was that tyranny blunted? By peaceful protest under the protection of a well regulated militia.

Tyranny means the oppression of people. Like the tyranny displayed by gun nuts who believe that weapons of warfare are to be used by private citizens. Those gun nuts show their disdain and tyranny by insisting that even though their assault weapons take a massive toll of dead, it is their "right" to hold them. That's the real tyranny, not some ill conceived notion of political tyranny held among reactionaries and militarized morons.

The tyranny of the gun nut can be measured by the number of mass shootings and street violence in America today. Ask yourself, should people have weapons designed for soldiers even though the consequences of those weapons is the slaughter of innocent citizens? What is tyranny if not the insistence by a few non-thinkers that they should hold weapons capable of killing so many people so quickly?

dumbass says what?

 

[Pogo]

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

::click::...::click:: ..:click:: link doesn't work.

That's OK I have one that does:

For Australia, the NFA (National Firearm Agreement) seems to hae been incredible successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurrd in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

-- Spring 2011 Bulletin, "The Australian Gun Buyback", Firearms Research Summary from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Good luck on getting your links to work. Maybe the safety was on.

 

[beagle9]

Gun Control is not nor ever has been about protecting people. It is all about disarming everyone so that they are helpless.

umm.. if everyone were disarmed... then what would there be to be helpless against?

Didn't see the movie eh, read the stories, or read the incident reports eh? How about you being in a situation where someone is coming at you with a knife, he is twice your size, taller than you are, bigger than you are etc. What are you going to do, and oh one more thing, you and your family only have 10 minutes until the cops arrive ? Willing to take the chance on the cops showing up on time or would you rather take your gun and save your family first?

You think you are so cute in your reply to people about their guns, well what would you do?

 

[eflatminor]

We must take "mass" out of "mass shootings".

Again, restricting firearms to law abiding citizens will NOT accomplish this goal. It will only hinder the ability to respond to a armed criminal, be it a mass shooting, a home invasion, or a thug willing to kill a store clerk.



First, we're FAR from the only country to experience mass killings. The worst examples of which were NOT in America. It's also worth noting that mass killings are on the DECLINE in America, with far fewer each decade. The peak for mass killings in America? 1929. Fact.

Also, it's entirely possible to kill lots and lots of people without a so called assault weapon. People been doing it for thousands of years.



You've already been proven wrong on that one. I understand you WISH they were never invented, but this is the real world. As such, criminals will have these weapons no matter what you attempt to ban. It makes no sense to give them an edge against good people.



Been tried here in America. Didn't work. Been tried in many other countries, including those that virtually banned ALL civilian firearm ownership. Didn't work there either. In fact, violent crime increased and mass killings continue to occur.



I would agree with you, but you're wrong. Supreme court settled the issue. Sucks for the tyrants and gun grabbers, good for liberty.



Back to la la land I see...

We do not extinguish fires with gasoline. Putting arms in everyone's hands to prevent gun violence is as nonsensical as a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline

So when you're cowering in the corner of a gun free zone as the crazy ************ is shooting innocent victim after victim, and a guy with a semi auto pistol takes out his sidearm to stop him, you gonna lay that asinine analogy on him...or will you be thankful someone saved your ass?

Either way, I really don't care. You go unarmed. The rest of us will remain prepared.

You love to say things like "back to la la land" as is you are completely satisfied with living in Columbine or Aurora or New Town. Well, I'm not satisfied with living in a nation so under the allure of gun violence that some propose more gun violence to stop it. Most Americans want this cycle of killing to stop. Most Americans are not under some esoteric delusion that because the second amendment says "not infringed" we must take it as a death sentence or the 'price" of freedom.

Assault weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Not a gaggle of idiots with fear motivating them about some perceived tyranny. Tyranny exists. The tyranny of the marginal thinker, the reactionary, the self styled Rambo who does not recognize the deadly consequence of his adolescent mindset.

Since there is no justification for assault weapons, there must be an outright ban on them and it must start today. No one should have assault weapons. Criminals, thugs, private citizens. We must sweep them from our streets, prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale and possession for our own good.

Let the tyrants who insist we must have them in our midst argue their case before the parents of the victims of such weapons. Let those gun nut tyrants explain the virtue of a weapon designed for war in the hands of private citizens. It's a loosing case, as common sense and logic cannot be brought to the defense of war weapons.

In the fog and confusion of a mass shooting, the last thing needed would be more bullets flying around innocent people. If you actually believe that more guns would prevent mass shootings, why did an assailant manage to wound four with six shots while in the midst of an armed cadre? John Hinckley wounded four, including the President of the United States. That president was surrounded by Secret Service and District of Columbia Police officers, all armed and proficient in firearms of all sorts. Yet all those guns did nothing to prevent Hinckley from wounding four. Hinckley was a private citizen with a gun.

When you're ready to propose something that doesn't result in criminals having superior firepower to law abiding citizens, I'll listen. Until then, you're advocating that which puts more good people at the mercy of crazies, criminals, and tyrants. Pass.

 

[eflatminor]

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

::click::...::click:: ..:click:: link doesn't work.

That's OK I have one that does:

For Australia, the NFA (National Firearm Agreement) seems to hae been incredible successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurrd in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

Actually, there have been two mass killings since Australia's gun ban was enacted. 15 killed at Childer's Palace and 7 casualties at Monash University in 2002.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

-- Spring 2011 Bulletin, "The Australian Gun Buyback", Firearms Research Summary from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Good luck on getting your links to work. Maybe the safety was on.

Now why would you incorporate the suicide rate into your statistics? Rather slippery of you.

Let's look at what happened to actual VIOLENT CRIME RATES (you know, people hurting other people). According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, (Homicide in Australia), from the inception of firearm confiscation in 1996 until 2000:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

Bummer...

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on April 4, 2002, "Robbery rates with guns rose
160% in 2001."

Gosh, that doesn't support your claim either...

Now, it's true homicides have declined in the 2000s in Australia, but that's true of just about every other western country, including America. Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small".

Read more: WSJ Op-Ed: Gun-Banning Efforts in the UK, Australia 'Haven't Made People Safer' (In Fact, They're Less Safe) | NewsBusters.org

Bottom line, there is no evidence bans were effective in getting criminals to obey gun control laws. Not during America's so called assault weapon ban, not in the UK and not in Australia.

So, I ask you, why would you wish to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals when you now know those the regulations you support do not prevent criminals from obtaining banned firearms and accessories?

Or is the just about what FEELS right?

 

[Nosmo King]

Again, restricting firearms to law abiding citizens will NOT accomplish this goal. It will only hinder the ability to respond to a armed criminal, be it a mass shooting, a home invasion, or a thug willing to kill a store clerk.



First, we're FAR from the only country to experience mass killings. The worst examples of which were NOT in America. It's also worth noting that mass killings are on the DECLINE in America, with far fewer each decade. The peak for mass killings in America? 1929. Fact.

Also, it's entirely possible to kill lots and lots of people without a so called assault weapon. People been doing it for thousands of years.



You've already been proven wrong on that one. I understand you WISH they were never invented, but this is the real world. As such, criminals will have these weapons no matter what you attempt to ban. It makes no sense to give them an edge against good people.



Been tried here in America. Didn't work. Been tried in many other countries, including those that virtually banned ALL civilian firearm ownership. Didn't work there either. In fact, violent crime increased and mass killings continue to occur.



I would agree with you, but you're wrong. Supreme court settled the issue. Sucks for the tyrants and gun grabbers, good for liberty.



Back to la la land I see...



So when you're cowering in the corner of a gun free zone as the crazy ************ is shooting innocent victim after victim, and a guy with a semi auto pistol takes out his sidearm to stop him, you gonna lay that asinine analogy on him...or will you be thankful someone saved your ass?

Either way, I really don't care. You go unarmed. The rest of us will remain prepared.

You love to say things like "back to la la land" as is you are completely satisfied with living in Columbine or Aurora or New Town. Well, I'm not satisfied with living in a nation so under the allure of gun violence that some propose more gun violence to stop it. Most Americans want this cycle of killing to stop. Most Americans are not under some esoteric delusion that because the second amendment says "not infringed" we must take it as a death sentence or the 'price" of freedom.

Assault weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Not a gaggle of idiots with fear motivating them about some perceived tyranny. Tyranny exists. The tyranny of the marginal thinker, the reactionary, the self styled Rambo who does not recognize the deadly consequence of his adolescent mindset.

Since there is no justification for assault weapons, there must be an outright ban on them and it must start today. No one should have assault weapons. Criminals, thugs, private citizens. We must sweep them from our streets, prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale and possession for our own good.

Let the tyrants who insist we must have them in our midst argue their case before the parents of the victims of such weapons. Let those gun nut tyrants explain the virtue of a weapon designed for war in the hands of private citizens. It's a loosing case, as common sense and logic cannot be brought to the defense of war weapons.

In the fog and confusion of a mass shooting, the last thing needed would be more bullets flying around innocent people. If you actually believe that more guns would prevent mass shootings, why did an assailant manage to wound four with six shots while in the midst of an armed cadre? John Hinckley wounded four, including the President of the United States. That president was surrounded by Secret Service and District of Columbia Police officers, all armed and proficient in firearms of all sorts. Yet all those guns did nothing to prevent Hinckley from wounding four. Hinckley was a private citizen with a gun.

When you're ready to propose something that doesn't result in criminals having superior firepower to law abiding citizens, I'll listen. Until then, you're advocating that which puts more good people at the mercy of crazies, criminals, and tyrants. Pass.

Here's my proposal:

A complete ban on the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession if all assault weapons, high capacity magazines and any and all weapons with automatic firing systems. A buy back program and full amnesty for those who currently hold such weapons and accessories. That buy back would be a voucher for a tax credit on the full market value of such weapons and accessories. This buy back/amnesty period would be for one year. Following that year, anyone in possession of the banned weapons and accessories is subject to a $100,000 fine and one year in federal prison. Anyone committing a crime with any such weapon is subject to a mandatory sentence of no less than three and no more than ten years in federal prison.

An immediate closing of the "gun show loophole" where sales are not accompanied by a back ground check. A federal tax on all ammunition of 75%.

 

[eflatminor]

You love to say things like "back to la la land" as is you are completely satisfied with living in Columbine or Aurora or New Town. Well, I'm not satisfied with living in a nation so under the allure of gun violence that some propose more gun violence to stop it. Most Americans want this cycle of killing to stop. Most Americans are not under some esoteric delusion that because the second amendment says "not infringed" we must take it as a death sentence or the 'price" of freedom.

Assault weapons belong in the hands of well regulated militias. Not a gaggle of idiots with fear motivating them about some perceived tyranny. Tyranny exists. The tyranny of the marginal thinker, the reactionary, the self styled Rambo who does not recognize the deadly consequence of his adolescent mindset.

Since there is no justification for assault weapons, there must be an outright ban on them and it must start today. No one should have assault weapons. Criminals, thugs, private citizens. We must sweep them from our streets, prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale and possession for our own good.

Let the tyrants who insist we must have them in our midst argue their case before the parents of the victims of such weapons. Let those gun nut tyrants explain the virtue of a weapon designed for war in the hands of private citizens. It's a loosing case, as common sense and logic cannot be brought to the defense of war weapons.

In the fog and confusion of a mass shooting, the last thing needed would be more bullets flying around innocent people. If you actually believe that more guns would prevent mass shootings, why did an assailant manage to wound four with six shots while in the midst of an armed cadre? John Hinckley wounded four, including the President of the United States. That president was surrounded by Secret Service and District of Columbia Police officers, all armed and proficient in firearms of all sorts. Yet all those guns did nothing to prevent Hinckley from wounding four. Hinckley was a private citizen with a gun.

When you're ready to propose something that doesn't result in criminals having superior firepower to law abiding citizens, I'll listen. Until then, you're advocating that which puts more good people at the mercy of crazies, criminals, and tyrants. Pass.

Here's my proposal:

A complete ban on the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession if all assault weapons, high capacity magazines and any and all weapons with automatic firing systems. A buy back program and full amnesty for those who currently hold such weapons and accessories. That buy back would be a voucher for a tax credit on the full market value of such weapons and accessories. This buy back/amnesty period would be for one year. Following that year, anyone in possession of the banned weapons and accessories is subject to a $100,000 fine and one year in federal prison. Anyone committing a crime with any such weapon is subject to a mandatory sentence of no less than three and no more than ten years in federal prison.

An immediate closing of the "gun show loophole" where sales are not accompanied by a back ground check. A federal tax on all ammunition of 75%.

Thereby ensuring the only criminals will have such firearms and accessories while no law abiding citizen can.

Brilliant...

Pass.

 

[Pogo]

You could ask that question of any of the countries that banned firearms. Their criminals still got firearms and used them with greater frequency AFTER the ban.

::click::...::click:: ..:click:: link doesn't work.

That's OK I have one that does:

Actually, there have been two mass killings since Australia's gun ban was enacted. 15 killed at Childer's Palace and 7 casualties at Monash University in 2002.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

-- Spring 2011 Bulletin, "The Australian Gun Buyback", Firearms Research Summary from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Good luck on getting your links to work. Maybe the safety was on.

Now why would you incorporate the suicide rate into your statistics? Rather slippery of you.

Let's look at what happened to actual VIOLENT CRIME RATES (you know, people hurting other people). According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, (Homicide in Australia), from the inception of firearm confiscation in 1996 until 2000:
• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

Bummer...

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on April 4, 2002, "Robbery rates with guns rose
160% in 2001."

Gosh, that doesn't support your claim either...

Now, it's true homicides have declined in the 2000s in Australia, but that's true of just about every other western country, including America. Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small".

Read more: WSJ Op-Ed: Gun-Banning Efforts in the UK, Australia 'Haven't Made People Safer' (In Fact, They're Less Safe) | NewsBusters.org

Bottom line, there is no evidence bans were effective in getting criminals to obey gun control laws. Not during America's so called assault weapon ban, not in the UK and not in Australia.

So, I ask you, why would you wish to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals when you now know those the regulations you support do not prevent criminals from obtaining banned firearms and accessories?

Or is the just about what FEELS right?

I'm getting busy out here (birthday, social stuff) so I can't get into detail but real quick, what I posted was directly, verbatim, from the report, so that's why the suicide stuff was in there. And I put that there because you gave no link. And while I don't have time to look at your latest link, I see "newsbusters" in the URL who are notorious liars, so I'm looking forward to it and not about to accept any of it without verification from a legitimate news source. I already know there's a ton of distortion on the record for Australia and other places, but we'll give this the time it deserves when there is some.

I actually subscribe to the Newsbusters e-mail updates. For the same reason people subscribe to joke-of-the-day. It's hilarious the stretch they'll go to. A notch above World Nut Daily.

Anyway I see you've moved from "bans didn't work" to "the evidence is uncertain" so I guess that's progress.

And just for the record I'm not on record supporting any ban. I'm just interested in real facts and shooting down the fake ones.

Later...