What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[M14 Shooter]

No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.

I love how you contradict yourself. Well done.

The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets.

Cite?

No place will ever be able to ban all guns. Is that simple enough for you to read-comprehend?

You said:
"No one is going to be able to ban guns"
You then allowed for the fact that "a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons"
AR15s are, certainly, guns.
Thus, your contradiction.
Feel free to walk it back.

Still waiting for you to cite something I said that is not true.

 

[iceberg]

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more

As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.

So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?

Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?

dunno. how many have abused "free speech" and gotten people hurt or killed over it?

but as usual, any port in a storm.

 

[iceberg]

We do not punish people by curbing their rights because they might do something.

In a polce state, they do. That's what he wants.

Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.

Look at you, completely unaware you responded with an non-seq.

Look at you, incapable of comprehending an on point comment (too abstract to break through your biases I see).

No. Your response had nothing to do with the comment.
None of the things you listed are an example of exercising a right; as such, they have nothing to do with restraining of the exercise of a right because someone migt commit a crime.
Thus, non seq.

like i said elsewhere, this is like cutting the dick off all men cause some men commit rape.

 

[bendog]

No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.

I love how you contradict yourself. Well done.

The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets.

Cite?

No place will ever be able to ban all guns. Is that simple enough for you to read-comprehend?

You said:
"No one is going to be able to ban guns"
You then allowed for the fact that "a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons"
AR15s are, certainly, guns.
Thus, your contradiction.
Feel free to walk it back.

Still waiting for you to cite something I said that is not true.

When you quote me, use the full sentence .. completely. No one will be able to ban guns although some cities may ban AR-15 type weapons AND IF THEY DO AND YOU DON'T LIVE THERE IT'S NONE OF YOUR ******* BUSINESS.

 

[bendog]

No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.

I love how you contradict yourself. Well done.

The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets.

Cite?

No place will ever be able to ban all guns. Is that simple enough for you to read-comprehend?

You said:
"No one is going to be able to ban guns"
You then allowed for the fact that "a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons"
AR15s are, certainly, guns.
Thus, your contradiction.
Feel free to walk it back.

Still waiting for you to cite something I said that is not true.

When you quote me, use the full sentence .. completely. No one will be able to ban guns although some cities may ban AR-15 type weapons AND IF THEY DO AND YOU DON'T LIVE THERE IT'S NONE OF YOUR ******* BUSINESS.

and yes, your OP began with a wailing absurd cry of them coming for your guns and you not being able to defend yourself. Now **** off asswipe

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.

I love how you contradict yourself. Well done.

The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets.

Cite?

No place will ever be able to ban all guns. Is that simple enough for you to read-comprehend?

You said:
"No one is going to be able to ban guns"
You then allowed for the fact that "a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons"
AR15s are, certainly, guns.
Thus, your contradiction.
Feel free to walk it back.
Still waiting for you to cite something I said that is not true.

When you quote me, use the full sentence .. completely. No one will be able to ban guns although some cities may ban AR-15 type weapons

Yep. That's where you contradicted yourself. Just as I said. Feel free to walk it back.

Still waiting for you to cite something I said that is not true

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.

I love how you contradict yourself. Well done.

The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets.

Cite?

No place will ever be able to ban all guns. Is that simple enough for you to read-comprehend?

You said:
"No one is going to be able to ban guns"
You then allowed for the fact that "a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons"
AR15s are, certainly, guns.
Thus, your contradiction.
Feel free to walk it back.

Still waiting for you to cite something I said that is not true.

When you quote me, use the full sentence .. completely. No one will be able to ban guns although some cities may ban AR-15 type weapons AND IF THEY DO AND YOU DON'T LIVE THERE IT'S NONE OF YOUR ******* BUSINESS.

and yes, your OP began with a wailing absurd cry of them coming for your guns....

This is a lie - the OP says no such thing.

 

[Blues Man]

OK let's take a new tack here

People say the right to bear arms is responsible for too many deaths and use the argument that you never know when a person is going to kill someone with a gun so no one should have guns, or no one should have certain types of guns, or no one should have a certain number of guns so to protect all people we must preemptively control the behavior of all people because they might kill.

So now let me give you thins information

Alcohol and Crime | SASC

Alcohol is a factor in 40% of all violent crimes today

Now if I use the same methodology I could argue that if we banned alcohol then we would see a 40% reduction in all violent crimes because anyone who drinks might commit a crime and you never know when it will happen.

No one is banning guns. That's the one sure thing the Sup Ct has told us.

You'd do better not assert facts that just aren't true. Such as the OP. Very few of the actual homicides happen because a person didn't have a pistole on their hip so they could outdraw their assailant.

You might ask the question as to whether a particular proposed regulation actually has at least the potential for a positive. For example, a gun sale that occurs within a family ... what good can arise from making that sale need a background check, and is any good possibly worth whatever burden occurs?.

I guess you missed all the other things I wrote to solely focus on that right? And yes some people want gun bans. Denying that is disingenuous.

And if a person draws on an assailant that is not a crime as it would fall under self defense laws.

No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.

And yes I notice background checks, and personally I think in-family sales should be exempt. However, private sales between people unrelated have seen guns used in crimes, including mass killings.

The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets. It happens, esp in crimes that start out as thefts and escalate. But that represents a small fraction of the number of homicides. There is a fantasy bordering on porn among some people and the notion that desperados are going to ride into town and gun them down and they won't be able to legally have firearms to defend themselves.

I never once mentioned the viability of gun bans I mentioned that there are some people that are calling for gun bans using the flawed logic that all people are killers in waiting

 

[Kittymom1026]

I was married to an ex cop who still had his police 38 revolver. He took me to the shooting range to teach me how to shoot and I was about knocked on my butt firing the first shot. It was too powerful for me....I'm only 5'2" and 110 pounds. He then got me a snub 22 which I still have today but don't have any bullets for it any longer. He also told me that if I made the commitment to shoot, to aim for the chest and empty the gun.

I now have a good friend who owns a gun shop and she told me to get a pump action shot gun because the pumping sound alone should be enough to deter the intruder and if it didn't, the spray of the rounds would likely do the trick.

I have a couple of friends who have concealed permits and I know that anywhere we go, they have their guns with them. I don't want one and don't care if others have them. I really don't want to see any open carry because I feel that it is only done to either show off or is done to intimidate people, or both.

Finally, about the teachers, let me ask some of you this........how many of you would face a spray of bullets to try and take down the shooter? The shooter has the element of surprise on his side whereas the teacher would have to go and retrieve the gun from it's secured place, then, unless they were behind the shooter, would place themselves in the immediate path of the shooter. and who do you think the shooter would shoot next when he saw the teacher with the gun? Would any of you face a shooter with an AK-15 and try to take him down while he was firing? You'd be dead before you hit the floor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Finally, about the teachers, let me ask some of you this........how many of you would face a spray of bullets to try and take down the shooter?

In a school, full of my kids?
If not me, who?
If I do not act, how many more die?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Guys, I'm as Pro-Second Amendment as it gets and there ARE too many guns in America in the wrong hands.

The average Joe shouldn't be able to go out and buy a semi-auto Long Gun without some education on how to use it, IMHO. You just never know when dimocraps might make themselves a serious nuisance.

But here's the thing. If dimocrap scum want to blame somebody, they need to blame themselves --

From Pravda West:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...llion-guns-since-1986/?utm_term=.bbdd283e778c

U.S. companies have manufactured more than 70 million firearms since 2008, rapidly escalating the production of pistols and the types of rifles used in recent mass shootings, government and industry data show.

In 2016, the latest year for which data is available, production spiked as firearms companies built roughly 11 million guns, in part because of a belief that Democrats (aka; dimocrap scum) would win elections that year and curb access to semiautomatic weapons such as the AR-15 rifle.

More than 4 million rifles were produced in 2016, up from 1.8 million in 2010. The National Rifle Association has estimated that 25 percent of all rifles produced in the United States are AR-15s or other semiautomatic styles, while other gun groups have said the ratio is closer to 50 percent.

All told, U.S. companies have manufactured more than 150 million firearms since 1986, according to the “Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report,” published each year by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

And yet, almost all of those guns have been purchased by a small percentage of the population. The ARs weren't purchased one at a time by each household. They were purchased many times by a small group of households. Bet you can't just own one The number of households that own guns hasn't changed in decades yet the number of guns sold has gone completely crazy. It's not the Dems that are buying them at such a fantastic rate, it's the guncrazies. Yes, in that bunch are the ones that just like to collect guns and there is nothing wrong with that. But I worry about the gunnutters who, in here as well, keep coming up with the idea that we are headed for an armed ressurection and spew about how the US Military will side with them. They are a scary lot and not a single one of them will vote Democrat. I doubt if they would be considered normal Republicans either by the old Republican standards. I know I wouldn't consider them as such. The problem is, they are the most likely to follow up on their way of thinking unless the rest of us keep them tamped down. Luckily, they only have two arms and one trigger finger.

So keep blaming the Dems. But remember, it was the republicans that introduced the Brady Bill.

 

[bendog]

OK let's take a new tack here

People say the right to bear arms is responsible for too many deaths and use the argument that you never know when a person is going to kill someone with a gun so no one should have guns, or no one should have certain types of guns, or no one should have a certain number of guns so to protect all people we must preemptively control the behavior of all people because they might kill.

So now let me give you thins information

Alcohol and Crime | SASC

Alcohol is a factor in 40% of all violent crimes today

Now if I use the same methodology I could argue that if we banned alcohol then we would see a 40% reduction in all violent crimes because anyone who drinks might commit a crime and you never know when it will happen.

No one is banning guns. That's the one sure thing the Sup Ct has told us.

You'd do better not assert facts that just aren't true. Such as the OP. Very few of the actual homicides happen because a person didn't have a pistole on their hip so they could outdraw their assailant.

You might ask the question as to whether a particular proposed regulation actually has at least the potential for a positive. For example, a gun sale that occurs within a family ... what good can arise from making that sale need a background check, and is any good possibly worth whatever burden occurs?.

I guess you missed all the other things I wrote to solely focus on that right? And yes some people want gun bans. Denying that is disingenuous.

And if a person draws on an assailant that is not a crime as it would fall under self defense laws.

No one is going to be able to ban guns. It's quite possible however that a city may ban sales of AR-15 type weapons for example, but the effect on self-defense is less than negligible.

And yes I notice background checks, and personally I think in-family sales should be exempt. However, private sales between people unrelated have seen guns used in crimes, including mass killings.

The OP began with an absurd false statement concerning unarmed citizens being gunned down on the streets. It happens, esp in crimes that start out as thefts and escalate. But that represents a small fraction of the number of homicides. There is a fantasy bordering on porn among some people and the notion that desperados are going to ride into town and gun them down and they won't be able to legally have firearms to defend themselves.

I never once mentioned the viability of gun bans I mentioned that there are some people that are calling for gun bans using the flawed logic that all people are killers in waiting

I don't think I "accused" you of anything about gun bans. The OP is hysterical, and the poster has a sore point for the fact that local govts can possibly not allow sales of specific classes of weapons, but an absolute ban will never happen.

NYC is pretty weird. No one wants to seriously challenge their restrictions. Or they didn't when Guiliani would possibly defend them.

But the issue is regulation. No one will ever be able to "prove" that some regulation stops X% of crimes. But there has to be some logical connection between what a regulation does and the potential for at least making it harder to find the means to commit crimes that aren't just spur of the moment husband shoots wife kind of things.

I think local govts can pretty well work stuff out to suit citizens' desires. My state's sort of weird. Anyone can open carry. Concealed carry needs an easily obtainable permit, that costs a couple hundred. You can also keep a gun with you in a car. I doubt many leave them in the car, but instead just put them under a coat or in a bag and take them inside their office.

Businesses can ban guns inside their property though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was married to an ex cop who still had his police 38 revolver. He took me to the shooting range to teach me how to shoot and I was about knocked on my butt firing the first shot. It was too powerful for me....I'm only 5'2" and 110 pounds. He then got me a snub 22 which I still have today but don't have any bullets for it any longer. He also told me that if I made the commitment to shoot, to aim for the chest and empty the gun.

I now have a good friend who owns a gun shop and she told me to get a pump action shot gun because the pumping sound alone should be enough to deter the intruder and if it didn't, the spray of the rounds would likely do the trick.

I have a couple of friends who have concealed permits and I know that anywhere we go, they have their guns with them. I don't want one and don't care if others have them. I really don't want to see any open carry because I feel that it is only done to either show off or is done to intimidate people, or both.

Finally, about the teachers, let me ask some of you this........how many of you would face a spray of bullets to try and take down the shooter? The shooter has the element of surprise on his side whereas the teacher would have to go and retrieve the gun from it's secured place, then, unless they were behind the shooter, would place themselves in the immediate path of the shooter. and who do you think the shooter would shoot next when he saw the teacher with the gun? Would any of you face a shooter with an AK-15 and try to take him down while he was firing? You'd be dead before you hit the floor.

One assumes that adults who have been trusted to be intelligent, responsible, and reliable enough to be given the care of people's children would also have the intelligence and responsibility to make judgement calls as to the best and most effective course of action in an emergency. If they don't, explain to me why in the hell I would want them caring for my child?

What you're trying to assert is akin to me saying, "Let me ask you: how many of you would face a burning building to try and put out the fire? The fire has the element of surprise on his side whereas the teacher would have to go and retrieve the fire extinguisher from its secured place, then - unless they were positioned upwind of the blaze - would place themselves in the path of the spreading fire. Would any of you face a fire with an extinguisher and try to put it out while it was burning?"

Call me crazy, but when I entrust my beloved children to another adult, I AM actually looking for someone who is going to risk him/herself - at least to a certain extent - to protect my kids against a variety of potential dangers and emergencies. THAT'S THE POINT OF LEAVING YOUR KIDS WITH A RESPONSIBLE ADULT. I'm afraid that, "Well, this just got difficult, **** it" really doesn't work for me in child caretakers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think I "accused" you of anything about gun bans. The OP is hysterical, and the poster has a sore point for the fact that local govts can possibly not allow sales of specific classes of weapons, but an absolute ban will never happen.

Wow.
Did you even read the OP?
I

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I was married to an ex cop who still had his police 38 revolver. He took me to the shooting range to teach me how to shoot and I was about knocked on my butt firing the first shot. It was too powerful for me....I'm only 5'2" and 110 pounds. He then got me a snub 22 which I still have today but don't have any bullets for it any longer. He also told me that if I made the commitment to shoot, to aim for the chest and empty the gun.

I now have a good friend who owns a gun shop and she told me to get a pump action shot gun because the pumping sound alone should be enough to deter the intruder and if it didn't, the spray of the rounds would likely do the trick.

I have a couple of friends who have concealed permits and I know that anywhere we go, they have their guns with them. I don't want one and don't care if others have them. I really don't want to see any open carry because I feel that it is only done to either show off or is done to intimidate people, or both.

Finally, about the teachers, let me ask some of you this........how many of you would face a spray of bullets to try and take down the shooter? The shooter has the element of surprise on his side whereas the teacher would have to go and retrieve the gun from it's secured place, then, unless they were behind the shooter, would place themselves in the immediate path of the shooter. and who do you think the shooter would shoot next when he saw the teacher with the gun? Would any of you face a shooter with an AK-15 and try to take him down while he was firing? You'd be dead before you hit the floor.

If a shooter gets that close, the whole system at the school has failed. There are methods used in schools today that isolate the students and the teachers behind steel doors and concrete walls. The shooter has to go in far enough that there is enough time for the Teacher to react to get their students to the safe places. If the Teacher is in a shootout, the whole system failed. What good does it do a shooter to roam the empty hallways with nothing to shoot at while the Cops storm the place.

The only thing I can see wrong with your assessment is your AK-15, It's going to be either an AK-47 or an AR-15. But otherwise good writeup.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'm so tired of hearing that line of bullshit. You and your AR are not a match for a single squad of semi-retired national gaurdsmen. If the big evil government decides to come for you you are done, and it doesn't matter haw many semiautomatic rifles you have.

So you think people in the military wouldn't rebel against the government for any reason?

You've watched too many movies.

No not really

It's a serious question

Could the government overstep its authority to such a degree that the people will rebel and if that happens will the military support the people or the government?

There is more of a chance where the Government does so little that it threatens the livelihoods of the citizens (Depressions and Recessions) that could cause something like that. There are just too many safeguards built in to prevent the Government from doing too much to cause an armed revolt. If that were the case, we are closer to that today than ever before. If you are depending on the US Military to back your hands, don't. Even a President has his hands tied trying to use the Federal Military for his own ends. The most that can happen is that Military will do exactly nothing unless you attack a federal agency, on federal lands, the US Military can and will defend it. The US Military (and me) swears to uphold and protect the United States Constitution above all things. The Armed Ressurection you keep bringing up is something out of a B movie scifi flix that the US Military would never allow to happen.

You have more faith in government than I do. I for one will never say it's impossible for any government to become the enemy of the people

Right now, I would say it's become more of an enemy to the people than it's been for the last 100 years. But we have a revolution every 2 and 4 years. I look for more corrections to happen.

 

[Kittymom1026]

I was married to an ex cop who still had his police 38 revolver. He took me to the shooting range to teach me how to shoot and I was about knocked on my butt firing the first shot. It was too powerful for me....I'm only 5'2" and 110 pounds. He then got me a snub 22 which I still have today but don't have any bullets for it any longer. He also told me that if I made the commitment to shoot, to aim for the chest and empty the gun.

I now have a good friend who owns a gun shop and she told me to get a pump action shot gun because the pumping sound alone should be enough to deter the intruder and if it didn't, the spray of the rounds would likely do the trick.

I have a couple of friends who have concealed permits and I know that anywhere we go, they have their guns with them. I don't want one and don't care if others have them. I really don't want to see any open carry because I feel that it is only done to either show off or is done to intimidate people, or both.

Finally, about the teachers, let me ask some of you this........how many of you would face a spray of bullets to try and take down the shooter? The shooter has the element of surprise on his side whereas the teacher would have to go and retrieve the gun from it's secured place, then, unless they were behind the shooter, would place themselves in the immediate path of the shooter. and who do you think the shooter would shoot next when he saw the teacher with the gun? Would any of you face a shooter with an AK-15 and try to take him down while he was firing? You'd be dead before you hit the floor.

If a shooter gets that close, the whole system at the school has failed. There are methods used in schools today that isolate the students and the teachers behind steel doors and concrete walls. The shooter has to go in far enough that there is enough time for the Teacher to react to get their students to the safe places. If the Teacher is in a shootout, the whole system failed. What good does it do a shooter to roam the empty hallways with nothing to shoot at while the Cops storm the place.

The only thing I can see wrong with your assessment is your AK-15, It's going to be either an AK-47 or an AR-15. But otherwise good writeup.

AR-15 is what I meant.....sorry. And as you've probably already seen, someone here would expect a teacher to face a spray of bullets to protect their child while being killed themselves because the shooter would kill them immediately and making their own children orphans. If this is expected of teachers, then those who expect it should home school their kids and keep them isolated in their own personal fortress. Oh, and not let them go to any malls as teens either, or anywhere else where the public gathers.

And, who do they think the shooter is going to take out first knowing there's an armed guard on duty. Like I said before, the shooter had the element of surprise on his side. And where was it that there was an actual armed guard on duty but he was too chicken to go into the building during the shooting?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And, who do they think the shooter is going to take out first knowing there's an armed guard on duty. Like I said before, the shooter had the element of surprise on his side. And where was it that there was an actual armed guard on duty but he was too chicken to go into the building during the shooting?

What about the scenarios that do not play out as your conveniently suppose?
Where the armed teacher/administrator/staff member is able to stop the shooter as or immediately after he enters, before he is able to kill a bunch of kids?
Why do you want to leave students and teachers defenseless?
Why do you want to leave the shooter unopposed until the police arrive?

 

[Kittymom1026]

And, who do they think the shooter is going to take out first knowing there's an armed guard on duty. Like I said before, the shooter had the element of surprise on his side. And where was it that there was an actual armed guard on duty but he was too chicken to go into the building during the shooting?

What about the scenarios that do not play out as your conveniently suppose?
Where the armed teacher/administrator/staff member is able to stop the shooter as or immediately after he enters, before he is able to kill a bunch of kids?
Why do you want to leave students and teachers defenseless?
Why do you want to leave the shooter unopposed until the police arrive?

If they're in the classroom teaching then how would they know about him immediately? Those teachers didn't know about any of the shooters until they started shooting!! Please tell me you're not that clueless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And, who do they think the shooter is going to take out first knowing there's an armed guard on duty. Like I said before, the shooter had the element of surprise on his side. And where was it that there was an actual armed guard on duty but he was too chicken to go into the building during the shooting?

What about the scenarios that do not play out as your conveniently suppose?
Where the armed teacher/administrator/staff member is able to stop the shooter as or immediately after he enters, before he is able to kill a bunch of kids?
Why do you want to leave students and teachers defenseless?
Why do you want to leave the shooter unopposed until the police arrive?

If they're in the classroom teaching then how would they know about him immediately?

Teacher/administrator/staff members are all over the school at all times; if someone comes into the school as starts shooting, someone will notice immediately.
Why do you want to leave students and teachers defenseless?
Why do you want to leave the shooter unopposed until the police arrive?