There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws

[JBond]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

You people are so far up your own asses. Don't you see how ridiculous your logic is? Ok you want more "good guys" with guns but you fail to realize that by arming everyone you are only increasing the risk of more nut jobs getting guns. It's such a brainless idea.

And let's examine the "good guy" scenario. Many concealed carried people may have good intentions, but many of them probably know next to nothing about gun safety. How do you think that would turn out?

Why would you assume many cc people know next to nothing about guns safety?

I'm sure many of them do understand gun safety.

You said many know nothing about safety. I am sure you have some reputable stats to back that up. They board should see your stats so they can make their own decision.

Well, where is your evidence that any CC is trained and responsible? You see how that works? I don't need evidence to know that SOME cc's are responsible and SOME aren't. It's just common sense.

Keep walking it back kid. You made the claim of many. Back it up or shut up.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Conservative hero Bill O'Reilly:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said.

O’Reilly and others seem to consider the AR-15 as a heavy weapon. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades,” O’Reilly said.

Implying Congress does indeed have the power to act, O’Reilly said, “That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.”

O'Reilly is an idioit. And unlike you, I've always been consistent about that. You're just sucking his dick for now because it's convenient.

Bitch please

 

[P@triot]

Ok so you are providing me an example of someone protecting their home as a rebuttal? I never said fhis didn't happen. Yes, plenty of good people own guns. The obvious point i am making is that making guns as accessible as you are suggesting increases the chances of more nutjobs getting guns. Either that, or retards with poor judgement that have no concept of what it means to own a gun responsibly.

How hard is this figure out?

Well...how hard is it to figure out that mass shootings only occur where guns are banned and never occur where they are prevalent?

 

[P@triot]

Yeah and blindly arming more people gives more guns to nutjobs. You see how that works? I know you cons love that childish fantasy of you dropping a bad guy with your holster weapon, but it doesn't make any sense to think it works even most of the time.

Can I ask why you insist on a false narrative? Is it because you know that you can't defend your position? Removing restrictions on where citizens can carry their firearms doesn't create more armed people. The only way for more people to get more guns is for them to purchase them. We are not talking about purchasing firearms. I never mentioned that. We're talking about expanding where existing gun owners can exercise their right to bear arms.

Incidentally, I've added roughly half a dozen links or so now backing up what I've stated with facts. I've noticed you don't have anything to back up your bizarre opinions.

What? You do realize that you have failed to explain WHY expanding would not increase the risk of more nutjobs getting ahold of guns, right?

I just did. We're not talking about gun purchasing. We're talking about removing restrictions on where they can be carried. Are you pretending to be confused by this???

 

[P@triot]

It doesn't have to be a "mass shooter". Every single day in America, an armed citizen stops a murder, armed robbery, or rape. Every day. Why should I be murdered or my wife raped just because you're a pussy? The U.S. Constitution guaranteed you liberty. It did not guarantee you safety or security. If liberty is too scary for you, there are a slew of nanny state socialist nations that would love to have more labor to exploit. Go live your liberal utopia.

Yeah and everyday people get shot for stupid fucking reasons. Doesn't that bother you?

It does! A lot! That "stupid fucking reason" is people like you insisting that we have gun-free victim zones. Armed people don't get shot.

Yeah and blindly arming more people gives more guns to nutjobs. You see how that works? I know you cons love that childish fantasy of you dropping a bad guy with your holster weapon, but it doesn't make any sense to think it works even most of the time.

If it doesn't make any sense - then why do tragedies only occur where guns are banned? You take a position so absurd - you can't even attempt to support it with facts. You just make a bizarre one line sentence and you run. Answer the question: why do tragedies only occur where guns are banned???

How many mass shootings in the White House? By your "logic", it should happen daily since there are hundreds of men and women armed with fully automatic weapons on the grounds.

How many mass shootings at police stations? By your "logic", it should happen daily since there are hundreds of men and women armed with weapons.

How many mass shootings at NRA meetings? By your "logic", it should happen every time there there are many hundreds of men and women armed with firearms.

What do you even know about the correlation between gun free zones and gun crime? You're just making shit up as you go along.

You're the one making stuff up. I've backed up everything I've said with facts (and in most cases - links so that you can easily verify). Now you're just lashing out from frustration.

 

[Billy000]

Yeah and blindly arming more people gives more guns to nutjobs. You see how that works? I know you cons love that childish fantasy of you dropping a bad guy with your holster weapon, but it doesn't make any sense to think it works even most of the time.

Can I ask why you insist on a false narrative? Is it because you know that you can't defend your position? Removing restrictions on where citizens can carry their firearms doesn't create more armed people. The only way for more people to get more guns is for them to purchase them. We are not talking about purchasing firearms. I never mentioned that. We're talking about expanding where existing gun owners can exercise their right to bear arms.

Incidentally, I've added roughly half a dozen links or so now backing up what I've stated with facts. I've noticed you don't have anything to back up your bizarre opinions.

What? You do realize that you have failed to explain WHY expanding would not increase the risk of more nutjobs getting ahold of guns, right?

I just did. We're not talking about gun purchasing. We're talking about removing restrictions on where they can be carried. Are you pretending to be confused by this???

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

 

[PredFan]

all the "Common Sense Gun Laws" have already been passed. There are no proposed gun laws in this thread that are anywhere near common sense.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah and blindly arming more people gives more guns to nutjobs. You see how that works? I know you cons love that childish fantasy of you dropping a bad guy with your holster weapon, but it doesn't make any sense to think it works even most of the time.

Can I ask why you insist on a false narrative? Is it because you know that you can't defend your position? Removing restrictions on where citizens can carry their firearms doesn't create more armed people. The only way for more people to get more guns is for them to purchase them. We are not talking about purchasing firearms. I never mentioned that. We're talking about expanding where existing gun owners can exercise their right to bear arms.

Incidentally, I've added roughly half a dozen links or so now backing up what I've stated with facts. I've noticed you don't have anything to back up your bizarre opinions.

What? You do realize that you have failed to explain WHY expanding would not increase the risk of more nutjobs getting ahold of guns, right?

I just did. We're not talking about gun purchasing. We're talking about removing restrictions on where they can be carried. Are you pretending to be confused by this???

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

Liberal nut jobs, liberal criminals - both of them do act responsibly where people are armed because they know they won't have any victims. You've failed miserably at your weak and nonsensical argument a dozen times now. Are you struggling to come up with something better?

 

[P@triot]

all the "Common Sense Gun Laws" have already been passed. There are no proposed gun laws in this thread that are anywhere near common sense.

What are you talking about?!? I made the initial post and I proposed an exceptional "common sense" gun law. You didn't even read it - did you?

 

[Billy000]

Yeah and blindly arming more people gives more guns to nutjobs. You see how that works? I know you cons love that childish fantasy of you dropping a bad guy with your holster weapon, but it doesn't make any sense to think it works even most of the time.

Can I ask why you insist on a false narrative? Is it because you know that you can't defend your position? Removing restrictions on where citizens can carry their firearms doesn't create more armed people. The only way for more people to get more guns is for them to purchase them. We are not talking about purchasing firearms. I never mentioned that. We're talking about expanding where existing gun owners can exercise their right to bear arms.

Incidentally, I've added roughly half a dozen links or so now backing up what I've stated with facts. I've noticed you don't have anything to back up your bizarre opinions.

What? You do realize that you have failed to explain WHY expanding would not increase the risk of more nutjobs getting ahold of guns, right?

I just did. We're not talking about gun purchasing. We're talking about removing restrictions on where they can be carried. Are you pretending to be confused by this???

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

Liberal nut jobs, liberal criminals - both of them do act responsibly where people are armed because they know they won't have any victims. You've failed miserably at your weak and nonsensical argument a dozen times now. Are you struggling to come up with something better?

You just know i am right and can't admit it.

 

[PredFan]

all the "Common Sense Gun Laws" have already been passed. There are no proposed gun laws in this thread that are anywhere near common sense.

What are you talking about?!? I made the initial post and I proposed an exceptional "common sense" gun law. You didn't even read it - did you?

That is why I deleted the post. Originally I stopped at the point where you said: "Obama had it right for 8 years." When I went back and read more, I deleted that post. Not quick enough I guess.

 

[P@triot]

Can I ask why you insist on a false narrative? Is it because you know that you can't defend your position? Removing restrictions on where citizens can carry their firearms doesn't create more armed people. The only way for more people to get more guns is for them to purchase them. We are not talking about purchasing firearms. I never mentioned that. We're talking about expanding where existing gun owners can exercise their right to bear arms.

Incidentally, I've added roughly half a dozen links or so now backing up what I've stated with facts. I've noticed you don't have anything to back up your bizarre opinions.

What? You do realize that you have failed to explain WHY expanding would not increase the risk of more nutjobs getting ahold of guns, right?

I just did. We're not talking about gun purchasing. We're talking about removing restrictions on where they can be carried. Are you pretending to be confused by this???

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

Liberal nut jobs, liberal criminals - both of them do act responsibly where people are armed because they know they won't have any victims. You've failed miserably at your weak and nonsensical argument a dozen times now. Are you struggling to come up with something better?

You just know i am right and can't admit it.

Well that is an intelligence response. I've crushed you with facts and data. You can't dispute one thing I've said.

Just admit that you do not want "common sense" gun laws. You're scared and you want oppression and control. Why is that so hard for you?

 

[Billy000]

What? You do realize that you have failed to explain WHY expanding would not increase the risk of more nutjobs getting ahold of guns, right?

I just did. We're not talking about gun purchasing. We're talking about removing restrictions on where they can be carried. Are you pretending to be confused by this???

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

Liberal nut jobs, liberal criminals - both of them do act responsibly where people are armed because they know they won't have any victims. You've failed miserably at your weak and nonsensical argument a dozen times now. Are you struggling to come up with something better?

You just know i am right and can't admit it.

Well that is an intelligence response. I've crushed you with facts and data. You can't dispute one thing I've said.

Just admit that you do not want "common sense" gun laws. You're scared and you want oppression and control. Why is that so hard for you?

So I'm just at supposed to accept your definition of "common sense"? How stupid is that? Also, what evidence have you given? You have not given any statistical evidence which is the kind of evidence that matters.

 

[P@triot]

I just did. We're not talking about gun purchasing. We're talking about removing restrictions on where they can be carried. Are you pretending to be confused by this???

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

Liberal nut jobs, liberal criminals - both of them do act responsibly where people are armed because they know they won't have any victims. You've failed miserably at your weak and nonsensical argument a dozen times now. Are you struggling to come up with something better?

You just know i am right and can't admit it.

Well that is an intelligence response. I've crushed you with facts and data. You can't dispute one thing I've said.

Just admit that you do not want "common sense" gun laws. You're scared and you want oppression and control. Why is that so hard for you?

So I'm just at supposed to accept your definition of "common sense"? How stupid is that? Also, what evidence have you given? You have not given any statistical evidence which is the kind of evidence that matters.

I've given endless statistical evidence. You keep thinking that if you pretend like I didn't nobody else will be able to see it...

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #1: How many people have died in mass shootings in the White House?

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #2: How many people have died in mass shootings in police stations?

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #3: How many people have died in mass shootings in NRA Meetings?

 

[Billy000]

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

Liberal nut jobs, liberal criminals - both of them do act responsibly where people are armed because they know they won't have any victims. You've failed miserably at your weak and nonsensical argument a dozen times now. Are you struggling to come up with something better?

You just know i am right and can't admit it.

Well that is an intelligence response. I've crushed you with facts and data. You can't dispute one thing I've said.

Just admit that you do not want "common sense" gun laws. You're scared and you want oppression and control. Why is that so hard for you?

So I'm just at supposed to accept your definition of "common sense"? How stupid is that? Also, what evidence have you given? You have not given any statistical evidence which is the kind of evidence that matters.

I've given endless statistical evidence. You keep thinking that if you pretend like I didn't nobody else will be able to see it...

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #1: How many people have died in mass shootings in the White House?

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #2: How many people have died in mass shootings in police stations?

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #3: How many people have died in mass shootings in NRA Meetings?

Yeah, apparently you don't know what statistical evidence means because you still haven't provided any.

 

[JBond]

You people are so far up your own asses. Don't you see how ridiculous your logic is? Ok you want more "good guys" with guns but you fail to realize that by arming everyone you are only increasing the risk of more nut jobs getting guns. It's such a brainless idea.

And let's examine the "good guy" scenario. Many concealed carried people may have good intentions, but many of them probably know next to nothing about gun safety. How do you think that would turn out?

Why would you assume many cc people know next to nothing about guns safety?

I'm sure many of them do understand gun safety.

You said many know nothing about safety. I am sure you have some reputable stats to back that up. They board should see your stats so they can make their own decision.

Well, where is your evidence that any CC is trained and responsible? You see how that works? I don't need evidence to know that SOME cc's are responsible and SOME aren't. It's just common sense.

Keep walking it back kid. You made the claim of many. Back it up or shut up.

Still waiting for Billybigmouth to reply. Can you present any evidence from a reputable source?

 

[P@triot]

Liberal nut jobs, liberal criminals - both of them do act responsibly where people are armed because they know they won't have any victims. You've failed miserably at your weak and nonsensical argument a dozen times now. Are you struggling to come up with something better?

You just know i am right and can't admit it.

Well that is an intelligence response. I've crushed you with facts and data. You can't dispute one thing I've said.

Just admit that you do not want "common sense" gun laws. You're scared and you want oppression and control. Why is that so hard for you?

So I'm just at supposed to accept your definition of "common sense"? How stupid is that? Also, what evidence have you given? You have not given any statistical evidence which is the kind of evidence that matters.

I've given endless statistical evidence. You keep thinking that if you pretend like I didn't nobody else will be able to see it...

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #1: How many people have died in mass shootings in the White House?

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #2: How many people have died in mass shootings in police stations?

Here is "Statistical Evidence" #3: How many people have died in mass shootings in NRA Meetings?

Yeah, apparently you don't know what statistical evidence means because you still haven't provided any.

Hahahahahaha! Game over.

 

[P@triot]

Still waiting for Billybigmouth to reply. Can you present any evidence from a reputable source?

It's very odd listening to a person (Billy000) who does nothing but post uninformed opinion demand "statistical evidence" from everyone else.

 

[P@triot]

Gee and those nutjobs with guns would somehow act responsibly in a public area?

Yeah....um....where is your "statistical evidence" about these supposed "nut jobs" and what they would do in public areas?

 

[P@triot]

Here is what caused this night club tragedy. It was political pandering and political correctness run amok - not guns. The blood (as usual) is all over the hands of the liberals who would rather see 50 dead bodies than 50 offended voters...

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. shut down an investigation into the mosque Orlando killer Omar Mir Siddique Mateen attended because it “unfairly singled out Muslims.”

Hillary’s State Dept. Blocked Investigation into Orlando Killer’s Mosque