CDZ Why are anti gunners so open all of a sudden about banning guns?

[Harry Dresden]

the people who want guns banned are just as zealous as the ardent pro gunners..........

Um, no.

The people who want guns banned don't want people murdering each other.

The people who want guns want them so they can done shoot the Government.

The people who want guns banned don't want people murdering each other.
and neither do 99% of the gun owners in this country...you know dam well that the die hard anti-gunners are just as passionate about what they believe as the die hard pro gunners,quit acting like one is more reasonable than the other.....

 

[justinacolmena]

Um, no.

The people who want guns banned don't want people murdering each other.

No. Only murderers, mobsters, druggers. and gangsters want guns banned, so THEY can continue murdering law-abiding people while taking away their lawful means of self-defense.

The people who want guns want them so they can done shoot the Government.

No. Some people use guns for target practice at the range. Some people use guns for hunting. Some people carry guns for self-defense. Many people enjoy shooting as a hobby or sport. What is wrong with allowing people to exercise their Constitutional right to bear Arms?

 

[JoeB131]

Irrelevant.

ONly if you are narcissist who doesn't care about anyone else.

Frankly, I'd like to live in a country where School Shootings don't happen here.

 

[JoeB131]

and neither do 99% of the gun owners in this country...you know dam well that the die hard anti-gunners are just as passionate about what they believe as the die hard pro gunners,quit acting like one is more reasonable than the other.....

Uh, sorry, guy, there's no way you can paint "I think that we should let crazy people have guns because we might need to fight the government some day" is reasonable on any day of the week.

"There should be reasonable restrictions on who can own a gun" is actually, pretty reasonable.

 

[JoeB131]

No. Only murderers, mobsters, druggers. and gangsters want guns banned, so THEY can continue murdering law-abiding people while taking away their lawful means of self-defense.

Most gun deaths are people shooting people they know. Of 16,000 homicides in the US, less than 2000 a year are gang related, according to the National Gang Center.

Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

By comparison, 900 Citizens a year are killed by LE Officers.

No. Some people use guns for target practice at the range. Some people use guns for hunting. Some people carry guns for self-defense. Many people enjoy shooting as a hobby or sport. What is wrong with allowing people to exercise their Constitutional right to bear Arms?

33,000 deaths
70,000 injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 Billion in economic losses per year.

 

[Harry Dresden]

and neither do 99% of the gun owners in this country...you know dam well that the die hard anti-gunners are just as passionate about what they believe as the die hard pro gunners,quit acting like one is more reasonable than the other.....

Uh, sorry, guy, there's no way you can paint "I think that we should let crazy people have guns because we might need to fight the government some day" is reasonable on any day of the week.

"There should be reasonable restrictions on who can own a gun" is actually, pretty reasonable.

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

 

[Skull Pilot]

Irrelevant.

ONly if you are narcissist who doesn't care about anyone else.

Frankly, I'd like to live in a country where School Shootings don't happen here.

Go ahead and move.

And t doesn't matter if I care people will still kill each other.

It is as irrefutable as gravity.

You may want to be defenseless if someone ever decides to kill you. And I support that.

But you have no right to tell me I have to be defenseless

 

[Skull Pilot]

No. Only murderers, mobsters, druggers. and gangsters want guns banned, so THEY can continue murdering law-abiding people while taking away their lawful means of self-defense.

Most gun deaths are people shooting people they know. Of 16,000 homicides in the US, less than 2000 a year are gang related, according to the National Gang Center.

Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

By comparison, 900 Citizens a year are killed by LE Officers.

No. Some people use guns for target practice at the range. Some people use guns for hunting. Some people carry guns for self-defense. Many people enjoy shooting as a hobby or sport. What is wrong with allowing people to exercise their Constitutional right to bear Arms?

33,000 deaths
70,000 injuries
400,000 gun crimes
270 Billion in economic losses per year.

Yes piece of shit criminals who know each other shoot each other.

The vast majority of shootings are committed by people with arrest records and the vast majority of people shot have arrest records

 

[80zephyr]

so then why did you not say the same thing for the 1st half?...or maybe the 2nd part doesnt read the way you want it to...

The thing is, I don't really care how the gun nuts have interpretted the second part...

For most of our history, it's been accepted that the first part gave government the right to regulate guns. Until the Gun Industry decided that common sense gun laws were impeding on their ability to profit off of death and misery.

The idea that crazy person has a right to a gun as clear as his right to believe in an imaginary sky being is plain nuts...

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!”

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

So people are lying about owning guns as much as they always have

And you do not have the right to tell me what I need.

When your hobby kills 33,000 of us a year, we do have a say.

If 33,000 is too many, what would be an acceptable number for you to let us keep our guns?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I grew up with rifles and pistols. Obviously I am not "anti-gun." The question is why anyone wants an automatic weapon and who do they intend to point it at. Those who insist on wanting to own them do not explain these things. Absent any cogent explanation for wanting to inflict these weapons on general society, we must assume that they have an evil motivation that society must protect itself against.

It's really difficult to get an automatic weapon.

I hope that it is. I am flummoxed as to why anyone in the U.S. wants one and what for. We are pretty safe here. I can't see where an invading army, if there was one, could in modern times get to a nation that spans an entire continent and produce a hand-to-hand combat situation that would mandate the use of these weapons. The British invasion of 1812 seems to have been the last time that there was such a possibility of this.

It's not so much for invading armies as it is to protect us from a tyrannical government.

What a ridiculous theory. It is inconsistent with the history of the Second Amendment at all, which obviously sought to strengthen the defenses of the new fledgling government.

The whore in the Oval Office has installed a tyrannical government here, now, present day. What are we supposed to do about it? Shoot them all and hang them upside down like Mussolini? Is this what you contend is appropriate?

Let me get this straight. The whore in the White House has installed a tyrannical government, and you are willing to disarm yourself?

Wow.

Mark

 

[EGR one]

You have no clue if those numbers are accurate or not

Um, yeah, except surveys keep finding the same trends...

maybe for that militia.....so you dont comment on the second half?.... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.....who are those people?...and what does "shall not be infringed" mean?...

Honestly, don't care. I throw that in there with the third Amendment... it was something they were upset about (gun confiscation) that has no relevance to our modern age. Kind of like the third amendment and quartering troops in people's houses.

There is no good reason for an average citizen to own a gun, but if you must absolutely have one, then it should be "well-regulated".

Or we can just get into the 21st century like the rest of the world and ban them.

The fact that you loons exist is enough reason to own guns. I have always wondered why, since the rest of the advanced world is more to your liking, why are you not there.

 

[Anathema]

Do you have a better argument than "The Founding Slave Owners Said I can have any gun I want if you read it the right way"?

I, like all other Men, have a God given RIGHT to defend myself by whatever means are necessary.

That good enough for you?

 

[EGR one]

so then why did you not say the same thing for the 1st half?...or maybe the 2nd part doesnt read the way you want it to...

The thing is, I don't really care how the gun nuts have interpretted the second part...

For most of our history, it's been accepted that the first part gave government the right to regulate guns. Until the Gun Industry decided that common sense gun laws were impeding on their ability to profit off of death and misery.

The idea that crazy person has a right to a gun as clear as his right to believe in an imaginary sky being is plain nuts...

The only people who have ever accepted that the dependent clause of the second amendment (the first part) gave the government the right to regulate guns, are the anti-gun crowd. The independent clause (the second part) makes that abundantly clear. You need to care about how the Supreme Court has interpreted the first clause.

Your risk of being killed by a crazy person with a gun is far less than the risk that you will be mowed down in a crosswalk by a drunk driver. BTW, drunk driving is against the law. It has been regulated by governments, and has severe penalties. Why can't you stop them from getting alcohol?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Criminals, by definition, don't care about the laws, and therefore will carry/use what ever weapon they choose. With that in mind, and the FACT that humans have the right to self-defense, we must allow people the ability to protect their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If no one is manufacturing them, they can't choose them.

And a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the household than a bad guy.

Every single time a government has oppressed a group of people, the first thing they did was dis-arm them, thus leaving them powerless to defend themselves.

That's a nice little cliche, but it's just not true. The Nazis, for instance, loosened the gun laws in Germany. And not one good German ever showed up to resist them. When Goldstein got sent to the camp to explore new career opportunities as a lampshade, the Good Germans did nothing.

Of the dozens of Cold War era scenarios that the USSR drew up for invading the US, not one included going through Texas. Texas has a history of defending itself with force ("Remember the Alamo!"). Texas also has a very high rate of private gun ownership. Coincidence? You decide.

The USSR never wanted to invade the US, period. Next.

So, are you a racist? Or maybe you are a Soviet sympathiser? Or a criminal? No? Then why, pray tell, would you wish for people to be unable to defend themselves?

Because gun nuts scare me a lot more than a communist does.

Because my next door neighbor shot wildly into the parking lot of the complex I live in (possibly hitting myself or one of my neighbors) before he offed himself a few weeks later.

Because other democracies have banned guns, they have less crime, less murder, and are more peaceful.

And generally, because you guys have made no effort to ever comprimise or be reasonable, so there's no reason our side should be when we win.

Actually yourstat on guns in homes being more likely to kill someone in the home is a LONG since debunked myth.

You really need to keep up with the times.

you are lying to others and yourself when you say guns scare you more than government,

They do not scare you you actually love and support gun but you wish for ONLY the government to have them. Despite the evidence that governments have murdered far more people WITH guns than all murderers combined.

Other democracies have had no effect on violent crime after banning guns but they have moved on to shred other rights and freedoms.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Because they're deluded enough to think they can actually win.

They're putting on the condom before the date.

Except there's a big difference this time.

This time, people are ignoring the National Rampage Association.

Actually they are listening to both sides. The NRA and the camera Hogg crowd of kids.

The kids are losing and the NRA is winning simply because the NRA is more reasonable and makes a better argument.

Hogg and his brat pack began to lose when they got on stage with the NRA and started calling them murderers.

This is an irrational and stupid way to argue and most people know that.

 

[80zephyr]

Irrefutable laws of nature

1 People kill people
2 People have always killed people
3 People will always kill people
4 Gravity

Yet oddly, in countries where they don't have easy access to guns, they kill a lot LESS people.

Bullshit. Russia and Mexico have very strict gun laws, and they kill each other at rates far greater than our own.

Mark

 

[boedicca]

Criminals, by definition, don't care about the laws, and therefore will carry/use what ever weapon they choose. With that in mind, and the FACT that humans have the right to self-defense, we must allow people the ability to protect their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If no one is manufacturing them, they can't choose them.

And a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the household than a bad guy.

Every single time a government has oppressed a group of people, the first thing they did was dis-arm them, thus leaving them powerless to defend themselves.

That's a nice little cliche, but it's just not true. The Nazis, for instance, loosened the gun laws in Germany. And not one good German ever showed up to resist them. When Goldstein got sent to the camp to explore new career opportunities as a lampshade, the Good Germans did nothing.

Of the dozens of Cold War era scenarios that the USSR drew up for invading the US, not one included going through Texas. Texas has a history of defending itself with force ("Remember the Alamo!"). Texas also has a very high rate of private gun ownership. Coincidence? You decide.

The USSR never wanted to invade the US, period. Next.

So, are you a racist? Or maybe you are a Soviet sympathiser? Or a criminal? No? Then why, pray tell, would you wish for people to be unable to defend themselves?

Because gun nuts scare me a lot more than a communist does.

Because my next door neighbor shot wildly into the parking lot of the complex I live in (possibly hitting myself or one of my neighbors) before he offed himself a few weeks later.

Because other democracies have banned guns, they have less crime, less murder, and are more peaceful.

And generally, because you guys have made no effort to ever comprimise or be reasonable, so there's no reason our side should be when we win.

Actually yourstat on guns in homes being more likely to kill someone in the home is a LONG since debunked myth.

You really need to keep up with the times.

you are lying to others and yourself when you say guns scare you more than government,

They do not scare you you actually love and support gun but you wish for ONLY the government to have them. Despite the evidence that governments have murdered far more people WITH guns than all murderers combined.

Other democracies have had no effect on violent crime after banning guns but they have moved on to shred other rights and freedoms.

Joe is just a typical garden variety cognitively dissonant Prog.

He thinks Trump is Literally Hitler, but wants the Feds to disarm citizens and for the government to have all the weapons.

Go figure.

 

[EGR one]

they are getting tired of yours too....and im not one of "those guys" Joe,i am not scared of common sense gun control as long as its common sense agreed upon by both sides,not just one side....

Yeah, here's the thing. THe gun fetishist are never going to agree to anything.

Here's what I'd consider a good compromise position.

You can own a gun if you
1) Undergo a thorough background investigation (not a check)
2) Get licensed by your state (different licenses for different types of weapons. An AR-15 license should be hard to get.)
3) Mandetory training to make sure you are proficient in the use and operation of the weapon.
4) Liability insurance.

Not unlike what we require if you own, let's say, a car.

Now, try going to someone like 2AGuy or Skull and say, "Hey, Joe's given a little, why don't you?"

Nope. You'll get a speech about how Hitler took the guns and the Founding fathers and who knows what else.

When you need government's permission (licensing) to do anything, it is no longer a right, it is a privilege. We are not about to surrender the second amendment to your illogical fear of inanimate objects.

 

[EGR one]

Irrefutable laws of nature

1 People kill people
2 People have always killed people
3 People will always kill people
4 Gravity

Yet oddly, in countries where they don't have easy access to guns, they kill a lot LESS people.

No, they still kill people, they just don't use guns. The USA is far down the list, 83rd, in per capita murder rates by country. Per FBI statistics.