|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> we’re going to take your (GUN) /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1568407553 Message started by MnSpring on 09/13/19 at 13:45:53 |
|
Title: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/13/19 at 13:45:53 Bank was robbed and they used a red car, so Ban red cars, no more robbed banks. Yep, NOTHING about saving lives, preserving freedom. Just TAKE/BAN Them ! Exactly what the UL FDS Socialists Want ! “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said. And all the, 'useful Idiot', UL FDS Socialists, stand in line. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/13/19 at 13:47:39 I like Beto! |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/13/19 at 14:04:26 Keep your AK's and AR's.... Just make clips holding more than 10 rounds illegal. That will make the buy-back much cheaper,.. and collectors/aficionado's can still have their toys. I know a lot of shotguns are limited to (3 or 5?) rounds and must be blocked from holding more, even though they could... right?... Why not do that?... The red car example is a bad analogy... There is nothing specific about red cars that make them more dangerous. Better would be,... too many cars are going over 120mph on roads creating a danger to everyone. Limit sales of all cars that go over 105mph... Fewer cars will go over 120mph... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/13/19 at 15:01:37 2731263B23363B20540 wrote:
Nope ! Not even close. The red car example is a bad analogy... There is nothing specific about red cars that make them more dangerous. Try this: Ban a gun, (like one used in school shootings), No More, (school Shootings) will occur. Is the SAME as, Ban a red car cause it was used in a bank robbery, so no more Bank Robberies will occur. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/13/19 at 15:26:44 7E687F627A6F62790D0 wrote:
ANY Competent person, could Out Shoot a, 'Scary' gun, (Ya know one of those, 'black' guns the snowflakes get their panties in a bunch over) With a SINGLE SHOT Shotgun. Even if the 'Scary' gun shooter could find a 100 round magazine, that worked. The point is, Punish the illegal shooter. do not punish the Honest one. Remember, the useful Idiots like O’Rourke, do NOT, want to save lives, protect freedom, educate people, punish criminals. They ONLY want to BAN GUNS. One at a time, until ALL, guns are banned. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/13/19 at 20:35:43 "Bank was robbed and they used a red car, so Ban red cars, no more robbed banks." Nobody has ever said banning red cars, or guns, will stop banks from being robbed. This as I have said before, is a poor comparison that nobody takes seriously. Its rate of murder per minute that is why there is so much following for banning high capacity rifles. Also its easier to ban something not everyone uses, than it is to ban common items like red cars. How many people have to tell you what a poor analogy the red car thing is? "Ban a gun, (like one used in school shootings), No More, (school Shootings) will occur. Is the SAME as, Ban a red car cause it was used in a bank robbery, so no more Bank Robberies will occur." Nobody has said no more school shootings will occur. They will occur, but with a different weapon. Its about reducing rate of murder per minute. If people really cared about firearm related deaths they would go after pistols since they are overwhelmingly more likely to be used in murder and suicide. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by batman on 09/14/19 at 05:15:40 The reason I've never applied for a pistol permit , I would own a pistol if it was a single shot and designed for hunting but ,I found it easier to cut down a rifle to the legal limit ,16"barrel , 29 " overall , shotgun 18"barrel ,29"overall . (federal law) |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/14/19 at 10:23:14 6646444C5146230 wrote:
Gun Banners believe, that others believe, It will ! The, 'Useful Idiots' who are 'Lock Step', with banning a particular type/style/model/make, of firearm. Believe, it will stop the misuse of, all things, that are remotely similar. I, and you, know that will not happen. Yet the Gun Banners, keep, 'inferring' that it will. Again, the Gun Banners do NOT, want to save Lives, their Goal is to BAN GUNS, All of them. And this, 'one', is just a start. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/14/19 at 11:10:21 "Gun banners",... believe banning high capacity guns will reduce the rate of kill, and give people a chance to overpower a shooter during reload. I know an expert can reload in a second, but most shooters are not experts. The Giffords shooter was overpowered while trying to reload. I don't know what color car he drove. ::) |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/14/19 at 14:35:12 Remove the scary guns.. And what happens? People who are intent on killing people will Go to different weapons. Ruger 10/22, they poke holes, and have high capacity magazines and are quick to reload. Shotguns can hold seven. Depending on the gun. Within a year of Solving the problem By eliminating AR15, ak47,, blah, blah, There will be a new buncha Scary guns. You people don't have any idea what you're wanting. Thank God I'm old. I don't even want to see how this Journey to Utopia Ends. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/14/19 at 16:19:59 607F797E63645565556D7F73380A0 wrote:
Do you read?. Ruger 10/22 would be banned, or mags over 10 round for it... :-? 4056415C44515C47330 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/14/19 at 16:26:28 I remember banning drugs. Worked great. You people are delusional |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/14/19 at 17:36:50 594F58455D48455E2A0 wrote:
Say a person, has a 50cc 'scooter'. They drive it once every month, (or 2), aground the block. Now, THEY, are telling you Bot, How to Drive a Motorcycle. When to drive a Motorcycle. Where to drive a Motorcycle. What to Wear when you drive a Motorcycle. How much Gas should go into a Motorcycle. Etc Etc Etc ... And they can tell YOU, all about what/why/where/when/how, to deal with a Motorcycle, Because They Have One !!!! |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/14/19 at 17:48:13 Say you're crashing that motorcycle into people and killing them... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/14/19 at 17:55:16 3E283F223A2F22394D0 wrote:
Simple, Punish THEM. Not the Motorcycle, or responsible people. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/14/19 at 18:00:43 Also, the person, that has that 50cc 'scooter'. Which they drive it once a month, (or 2), aground the block. ALSO, tells you, WHICH, Motorcycle you can have. Again, all because, they HAVE ONE ! |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by oldNslow on 09/14/19 at 19:26:23 7C626D6C617C677A080 wrote:
I like him too. He just let the cat out of the bag, big time. :D So much for the dem's conventional blather about '' while we support the second amendment, and don't want to deprive law abiding gun owners of their rights we've got to do something about ( fill in the blank) yada, yada yada.... True colors. Only time they tell the truth is when they slip up. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/14/19 at 20:04:54 "I remember banning drugs. Worked great. You people are delusional " Who here has said it worked, or that banning guns will stop gun crime? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/15/19 at 06:22:12 022220283522470 wrote:
Elude to the, 'usefull Idiots', that, Banning/Confiscating Guns, Will stop crime. When in fact, The goal is to remove all guns, that are not controlled by a Socialist Government. '...put a frog in a pan of cold water, and S L O W E L Y raise the heat..." |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/15/19 at 06:34:38 Oh, Bot, make sure you turn in your S-40. After all a S-40, HAS, Killed someone. And yours, especially with a Crome Gas tank, is modified. So take it to your nearest DMV, they will give you $50.00 on the ‘buy-back’ program. Oh and tt, that highly modified S-40, called a Bobber, You have no need to own it. You are not, ‘approved’ to own it, (your neighbor called in and told us all about you) Their are many other M.C.’s that are suitable for you to drive. You simply don't need, that, or any other, 'bobber'. tt, you don’t need to take your Bobber to a DMV, ‘WE’, will come and take it. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/15/19 at 06:48:42 "The people that want to Confiscate/Ban guns, Elude to the, 'usefull Idiots', that, Banning/Confiscating Guns, Will stop crime." Who here has said it worked, or that banning guns will stop gun crime? To clarify the word "here" is intended to represent forum members of this particular forum in exclusivity. Who on this forum has stated they would like to see every firearm eradicated from the US? As far as I can tell nobody has. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/15/19 at 07:21:51 1C3F022123383F36510 wrote:
You are intentionally making false equivalences. An assault rifle is not a moped, or a red car. An assault rifle is a rifle made to spray a lot of bullets. An equivalence would be a car or bike made to go 200mph... You can argue that you want one, but no one needs one, and it has no legal purpose for public use. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/15/19 at 08:35:14 Large Commercial Vehicles would be an example of closer equivalence. It's not like just anyone can grab a diesel tractor/trailor and go on public roads. Something about safety, something about killing other people on the road I think. Its still a poor comparison because nobody is going to equate personal firearm ownership with vehicle use. The principle is sound, we do have a right to bear arms, but not a right to a driver's license. Its a word game that nobody who want's to get things done will play. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/15/19 at 13:06:47 6274637E66737E65110 wrote:
OK, so you are happy with someone who has a 50cc moped, somewhere, and rides it, (every now and then). Telling you. That YOU, don’t need a big BMW, Ducati, or Harley. And certainly not a Kawasaki Ninja, Triumph Rocket, (or anything, named, 'Ninja or Rocket') All because a person has, Or HAD, a 50cc moped. Said so ! OK Got it. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by zevenenergie on 09/15/19 at 13:22:52 I also don't like it, when they take my toys. http://https://i.imgur.com/6fHH4Ry.jpg |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/15/19 at 13:34:22 Careful with that hammer, Zeven... ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/15/19 at 14:29:30 "That YOU, don’t need a big BMW, Ducati, or Harley. And certainly not a Kawasaki Ninja, Triumph Rocket, (or anything, named, 'Ninja or Rocket')" If you want to make ridiculous comparisons lets go this way: When those bikes are used by one person to murder 50 others in a nightclub or a concert give me a call. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/15/19 at 15:00:43 0424262E3324410 wrote:
In that case, if your are going for, '...ridiculous comparisons...". Then ya Better also BAN, Vapers, Booze, Cigarettes, Cell Phones, to name just a few things that Kill far more than a firearm. (If the goal, is to save lives. Which it is not) Was it the fault of the DFI, (a Person), that misused the Firearm? Or was it the fault of the Firearm ? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/15/19 at 18:19:25 "Was it the fault of the DFI, (a Person), that misused the Firearm? Or was it the fault of the Firearm ?" It is obviously the fault of the person. Which is why your red car analogies will get you, and anyone wanting to keep nonsense gun laws from revoking your rights, nowhere. You are using useless comparisons. The Red Car robbing banks makes as much sense as the motorcycle killing 50 people in a nightclub. Maybe try a strategy that works. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/15/19 at 18:28:36 No comparison. We have a right to own weapons. That idiots misbehave with something, and somehow law abiding people are stripped of Their rights? Yeah, threatening to force people to get rid of their Legally owned stuff? You people don't know what you're doing. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/15/19 at 18:49:03 "You people don't know what you're doing." Has anyone here said all guns should be taken away? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by oldNslow on 09/15/19 at 19:10:06 7D5D5F574A5D380 wrote:
How 'bout this: "Give me your guns" "No. Your move" “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” [ch8213] Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956 Eegore wrote: " Has anyone here said all guns should be taken away?" It isn't the people on this little discussion board that we need to worry about. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/15/19 at 22:20:21 You're too smart to KEEP NEEDING TOLD Mr and Mrs America Turn them all in. And you may not want All of them.. But you can't have ANY, You people are playing with fire. There are tons of people out there who are young and aware of the way it goes. You take some guns,, and you think those people are just gonna be cool? nuts,, what did you people learn just removing statues? Instead of removing guns From Law Abiding Citizens Let people CARRY, for their own protection.. Lefties always go at stuff wrong.. How have the no gun zone signs been working? How is it you people aren't seeing the Turn in your KNIVES Drives in Europe. We don't have a gun problem. We have society in decay. Thanks lefties. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/15/19 at 22:24:16 "You people don't have any idea what you're wanting." "You people are delusional." "You people don't know what you're doing." "You people are playing with fire." Who? Nobody here is saying what you are trying to address. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/15/19 at 22:27:52 Ahh, so you're Against taking guns now. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/15/19 at 22:31:19 "Ahh, so you're Against taking guns now. " When did I ever say taking guns is a good idea? Never. Just because someone thinks comparing guns to red cars will take a discussion nowhere really fast doesn't mean they want every firearm in the US eradicated, or even one gun taken from any law abiding citizen ever. I want to have a productive discussion, you want to complain. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/15/19 at 22:57:14 I remember you asking Again For proof that people want All guns gone I've done it Several times You want a discussion? How many dead BECAUSE of laws against good people carrying? If YOU, Eegore, don't want to see any guns taken, good for you. Then I'm talking to those who Would. My statement remains. You can discuss everything I've said. https://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/ How many more innocents need to die before you turn your guns in? Makes as much sense as How many more rapes need to happen before you cut your d!ck off. And not liking that question doesn't keep it from being a perfect example of the faulty logic of law abiding citizens being punished for evil deeds by evil people. People NEED to be able to defend themselves. Notice where the shootings aren't. And no Even with more people carrying All shootings won't cease And Even being armed won't guarantee you don't get shot. So, I have stated it Let's try to not pretend I'm an idiot who believes otherwise and how about everyone just grow up and not try that Little game,, where you pretend that unless the answer is perfect it's not good enough. Seatbelts don't save everyone.. That doesn't mean they aren't generally good. Society is safer now than before the proliferation of concealed carry. Who wouldn't wish they were armed if some idiot started shooting? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by zevenenergie on 09/16/19 at 02:07:50 You could also look at the bigger picture. I recently heard that the earth is the last planet where people think, they have the right to do another damage. What would america look like if weapons were banned. Would the number of robberies fall over time? Could it drastically reduce problems in certain neighborhoods? Would some people adopt a healthier attitude to life? Walking around with guns is actually something for a war zone. Self-defense is of course allowed. Self defense must be proportional at all times. And that is almost impossible with guns. This topic is now on our plate. Why don't we deal with our anger once and for all, in adulthood? :) |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 05:24:33 You could also look at the bigger picture. I recently heard that the earth is the last planet where people think, they have the right to do another damage. What would america look like if weapons were banned. Would the number of robberies fall over time? Could it drastically reduce problems in certain neighborhoods? Would some people adopt a healthier attitude to life? Walking around with guns is actually something for a war zone. Self-defense is of course allowed. Self defense must be proportional at all times. And that is almost impossible with guns. This topic is now on our plate. Why don't we deal with our anger once and for all, in adulthood? :) The vast, vast majority of us do deal with our anger. The St Louis metro area where I live has a population of just under 3 million. I believe we had a little more than 200 murders last year. A handful of zipcodes had virtually all the murders. I would assume all major matro areas follow the same pattern. That plate is too uncomfortable for most to look at so they broaden the view to make it more palatable. Draw a mile wide circle around my house and within it, you would find thousands of firearms in homes. However, its virtually certain none of those will ever be used with murderous intent. 99.xxx% (insert whatever number of 9's you'd like) As far as proportionally, if someone's coming at me with a knife intent on killing me, I consider a gun a proportional response. What would the world look like with no guns? Go back 500 years and see how peaceful it was...... If you think banning weapons would bring about a world where the lion and the lamb lay down together, as they say I've got a bridge in Brooklin to sell you. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 05:38:41 "I remember you asking Again For proof that people want All guns gone I've done it Several times" I asked once. I've never asked again, actually I recognized your information and thanked you for providing it. You keep saying people here are anti-gun, asking for all guns be taken away. Nobody here is, so why keep calling us delusional? "Makes as much sense as How many more rapes need to happen before you cut your d!ck off." No it doesn't. That comparison is as useless as banning Red Cars after a bank robbery. Nobody is going to take you seriously as long as you keep using such poor logic and even worse word-games nobody can ever use in the real world of change. You are saying how many people murders need to happen before you shoot your d!ck. Nobody is asking for bodily mutilation so nobody will ever take you seriously. You want a statement that is actually useable, and one people will actually talk to you about: Society is safer now than before the proliferation of concealed carry. See what I am saying? Use arguments that are real. As I have stated multiple times before, we have successfully recalled (fired and removed) politicians in my state for implementing bans on high-capacity magazines (including proposals for further restrictions). They acted against their constituency, so we removed them. Do you think any part of that successful process to stop gun control by the State included analogies about body mutilation or Red Cars being banned? It wouldn't have worked because the analogies are poor, nobody would have joined the recall process based off those strategies. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 05:41:55 "Self-defense is of course allowed. Self defense must be proportional at all times. And that is almost impossible with guns. ? If criminals possess guns, and use them to kill, what would be "proportional" self defense? Also what would be "effective" self defense? I propose any self defense that is unuseable/ineffective can not be considered proportional. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by zevenenergie on 09/16/19 at 06:08:00 Dear Westermark, You outline the problem with guns. In this way you maintain the problem. With your permission... Let us look at it for a moment, without the discussion whether or not to ban weapons. I see self-defense as proportional when you protect yourself from serious injury, without unnecessarily violating the other. You can also outrun an attacker with a knife. And if you can,t out run him, shoot the leg. I consider everything else as violence. And let's be honest.... it is. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 07:24:30 "And if you can,t out run him, shoot the leg." There is a fundamental problem with this philosophy. Real violence doesn't involve a guy standing in front of you presenting a knife saying "gimme your money". To say people have an obligation to precisely impact a highly mobile target while in fear for their life is something that only a person who has never had to use a firearm in a violent encounter would think is plausible. Now to say "they shouldn't have a gun unless they can use it accurately" is again in issue with people who don't save lives with firearms as a tool. I've run thousands of active firearm exercises in my career, it's not plausible to tell people to target specific parts of the human body while under duress. I have invited many critics of firearm usage to our exercises and to date maybe a hundred have shown up. Nobody, not one has successfully shot a subject in the arm that held a weapon (hammer or bat) while under duress. As such I invite you to attend a Simunition exercise, (no real bullets) and you can demonstrate shooting in the leg while under assault from a person with a knife. We have done this for years (It's called the Tollet principle) and to be fair you can practice ahead of time with the weapon and the distance of the attacker will be no closer than 25 feet. Also there is no obligation to run out of one's home to spare themselves violence, and there should not be. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 07:31:16 I consider everything else as violence. And let's be honest.... it is. Yes, it is. Absolutely. Violent men sometimes need to be met with greater violence. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take yoiur (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/16/19 at 07:48:40 How is Mandatory gun "buyback" Not violence? If it's Mandatory And you choose to Not participate You will get violence. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 07:56:56 "If it's Mandatory And you choose to Not participate You will get violence" So all enforceable law is Violence by that definition. A mandatory buyback is no different than mortgage payments, (can be evicted by force from one's home). Speed limits in school zones is violence. If you choose not to participate you get violence. Laws against child molestation is violence. If you choose not to participate you get violence. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 07:57:54 66796A79727972796E7B75791C0 wrote:
What were the previous planets, where people think ? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by zevenenergie on 09/16/19 at 08:13:13 I,m not some one who want,s to ban guns. I only see that everyone is more or less confused and violence arises from this. Someone who attacks you is just a little more confused than you at that moment. Why does he have to die? Dear MnSpring, On the others planets they see thinking as a tool and not as an identity. And thay see hate and fear as a force in them, that comes to visit. They are not taken over by it. They don't say i'm angry and that's because of you. They take responsibility for it. ::) |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 08:17:20 As has been said before; if you think you own your home, stop paying your real estate taxes and find out who really owns your home. Let's be honest, a gun buyback program could have an impact on gun crime. Say for example the USA implemented a $1,000 price on all pistols, no questions asked. Bring in a pistol, get $1,000. By default, all commercial sellers would now have a minimum price of at least $1,000 for any pistol. Also, all black market prices now instantly jump to $1,000. No one could buy a pistol for less than $1,000. That would price SOME criminals out of the "gun crime" business because many gun crimes are drug dealers and gang bangers shooting each others. They are not exactly what you would call financial stable individuals. They are all going to be down on their luck from time to time and raising $1000 by selling a gun would be too tempting to pass up. That's simple economics. However, simple economics also tell us when there's a demand, they'll be a supply. I would guess sawed off rifles would fill the gap. So then the government includes all firearms under their buyback and would have to increase the payout to cover higher priced rifles. Let's say it jumps to $2,000. What does simple economics tell us would likely happen? The only legal owners of guns would mostly be suburban prosperous residents. The only ones with guns in the inner cities where much of the violence occurs now would be 'enforcers' for the major drug and crime rings who would afford to arm their people. The suburbs would be a target for home break ins looking for guns to steal for easy money. So the "no questions asked" part of the buy back would be threated because the police would use that as a way to find the criminals who broke into houses to steal guns and sell them back. So then what? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 08:28:12 Someone who attacks you is just a little more confused than you at that moment. Why does he have to die? He doesn't have to die, but some actions have severe consequences. Innocent people die by these confused people and that's not a tolerable outcome. To suggest that someone who attacks (with violent intent that could lead to murder) is a little more confused than you at that moment is a fine philosophical or academic statement, but not a pragmatic one. If you had a child molested by a "little more confused" neighbor, and then he moved to a new neighborhood away from you, I doubt you'd feel the same; that simply running him our of your neighborhood is a 'proportional' response. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 08:35:43 "To suggest that someone who attacks (with violent intent that could lead to murder) is a little more confused than you at that moment is a fine philosophical or academic statement, but not a pragmatic one." This is a good way to put this. To be fair some people will die so they don't have to hurt another. But in this case the assumption is that a criminal "must" die if they are trying to kill you. This is not true and is not part of "proportionality" as death is not the intended consequence, safety is. If I shoot someone in my house with a knife saying they are going to rape my wife and children I do not need him to be dead, I just need him to not be raping my wife and kids. He may be confused and acknowledging that has done nothing to save my family. I am not going to aim for his leg and risk my family being sexually assaulted, I am aiming for the largest mass since he is a mobile active threat to my family. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by zevenenergie on 09/16/19 at 08:41:12 Look I know how it works, I'm also a father. I just want to indicate that we cannot blame the others for what we do. And it's good that there are laws. And I see that many people with guns think they can handel them, but they can't hit a leg and they can't handle their feelings of fear and anger with adulthood. Then I think you shouldn't be surprised to see that they want to ban weapons. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 09:01:04 2F3023303B303B3027323C30550 wrote:
I believe the first thing to do to curb DFI's from using a gun wrong. Is to enforce the laws already on the books ! When a Felon comes into a gun shop, and fills out the 4473, and goes through the BACKGROUND CHECK. And that gun-purchase was denied. That Felon/Illegal/Lier, has a 0.09 chance of being prosecuted. "...Your chances of being prosecuted by the Justice Department for falsifying information to illegally buy a gun are almost zero...." "...many gun dealers that repeatedly engage in knowing or negligent straw transactions, ..." That happened, Because Holder and Obama, TOLD them they SHOULD. (Fast & Furious debacle) "...the Brady Campaign’s Gardiner said she agrees with Sessions that existing federal gun laws should be enforced..." https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/11/lying-buy-gun-fear-not-feds/?noredirect=on "...You can also outrun an attacker with a knife...."If that attacker is 21 feet away from you, has a knife, and has the knife out, and you have a gun in a holster. That knife person CAN, stab you, before you can shoot them. That is a absolute fact that has been proven over and over and over. "...And if you can,t out run him, ..." Yep, if you can outrun, remove yourself from the threat, absolutely. What happens if he/she can run faster than you? "...shoot the leg..." Unfortunately, you cannot, 'Purposely', shoot the attacker in the leg. If you do, they will Sue you for everything you have, and WIN, because their attorney went Judge shopping for a Ultra Liberal Judge. While that is being done. Education. Incorporate the/or like, 'Eddie Eagle' program into young people, grades, 1-6. Incorporate the/or form, of the State, 'Conservation Department' program. Which in one for or another has been around since 1955. And has reduced the number of firearms accidents from, in the 50's, 700 deer hunting accident per, 100,000, to today, less than 200 per 100,000. Education would reduce the number of, school/theater/concert/baseball field shootings. Education would include shooting at a range. Which shows the students that don't know, what a bullet can do. And it will remove the, 'forbidden fruit' stigma guns have. (Last 10 + years, have added, which is repeated every time in class, when discussing what a firearm can do. "Their is NO, 'Re-Set Button on a Gun") Implicating just those two things, will be a significant improvement, over 'banning' a type of Gun. As to the high rate of murders, in a 'inner city' area, by gang bangers. Education. Cause we all know that, Banning a Gun, (Because it has been done over and over), does NOT work ! |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/16/19 at 09:08:54 Banning all guns is an extreme position. Which I suppose is the point of this thread. Doing nothing is the opposite extreme. You can argue the chicken and egg of this polarity, but,.. one position seems to create the other. Without accepting reasonable compromise, the polarity will grow. Although America has more guns than people, they are owned by a minority of citizens. If gun owners as the minority currently in power, do not reach a compromise, they will pay when the tables turn. They're actually paying now, as Trump and Congress lose public confidence and the country gets bluer. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 09:19:16 6545474F5245200 wrote:
I believe the above analogy, is a poor analogy. A, 'mandatory', is, mandatory. As in, it is forced, it is a 'Have To'. And, 'mandatory', often has a punishment attached to it, if the, 'mandatory' part is not fulfilled. A 'mortgage ', Loan, is NOT, 'mandatory', it is a choice. And, if one chooses to take out a loan, they accept, that they, 'can be evicted by force'. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 09:31:57 Although America has more guns than people, they are owned by a minority of citizens. I'm not sure that's a true statement or if it is, what the percentage actually are. Beto O'Dumbsh!t has created this current storm with the hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15's comment. This reinforces the stand many are going to take against any additional legislation because to put it mildly, I simply do not trust or believe you (the Democratic Party) when you say you want reasonable new gun control laws enacted. I'm not sure what 'reasonable polarity' would look like. Gun crime is mostly isolated to very specific pockets of inner cities. It's being presented as if we are all at a high risk of being shot but that's simply not true. 99.9% of guns are never used illegally, yet we are talking about widespread restrictions created by a fraction of the people. And these restrictions intersect with a very specific Constitutional Amendment. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/16/19 at 09:31:59 There are worse things than a mandatory buy-back... They could just ban them... https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks "Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of possession as of the effective date of the final rule (March 26, 2019). One option is to destroy the device, and the final rule identifies possible methods of destruction, to include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to function." |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 09:32:39 "A 'mortgage ', Loan, is NOT, 'mandatory', it is a choice. And, if one chooses to take out a loan, they accept, that they, 'can be evicted by force'." "gun ownership" is not "mandatory', it is a choice. And, if one chooses to own a gun, they accept, that they, have to follow gun laws Federally and in their state. You are clearly mixing "mandatory" between mandatory following of law and mandatory buying of a house. The home ownership is equal to gun ownership, if you Choose to have either, the law is Mandatory. By JoG's logic the enforcement is violence. So if Buy Back is violence, so is a mortgage payment because they can both be enforced. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 10:01:40 7656545C4156330 wrote:
Yep, Correct, It is a Choice to buy a gun. However, today, I buy a gun, by choice. I own the gun, and it is totally legal. Tomorrow, it becomes, illegal. And their is a "mandatory" by back, with penalty's attached if I do not, "mandatory", give it up. The 'Choice' would not be made. In fact the 'choice' would not even be a option. A House loan, today, is entered into by choice, which is the knowing of what will happen if the loan is not paid back. I do believe that if something is legally owned, Then,"mandatory", taken away, that is also called, 'confiscation of property'. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 10:28:32 [quote "... Beto O'Dumbsh!t has created this current storm with the hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15's comment. This reinforces the stand many are going to take against any additional legislation because to put it mildly, I simply do not trust or believe you (the Democratic Party) when you say you want reasonable new gun control laws enacted ..."/quote] That, is a understatement. Beto did not just shoot himself in the foot. He seriously wounded, everyone on that stage who agreed with him ! |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/16/19 at 10:39:47 Just some facts: 1 Three-in-ten American adults (30%) say they personally own a gun, and an additional 11% say they live with someone who does, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in March and April 2017. Whether or not they personally own a gun, Americans have broad exposure to firearms: Nearly half of U.S. adults (48%) grew up in a household with guns, nearly six-in-ten (59%) have friends who own guns and around seven-in-ten (72%) have fired a gun at some point in their lives – including 55% of those who have never personally owned a gun. Among Americans who own a gun, nearly two-thirds (66%) say they own more than one, including 29% who own five or more. A large majority of gun owners (72%) own a handgun or pistol, while 62% own a rifle and 54% own a shotgun. About three-quarters of gun owners (73%) say they could never see themselves not owning a gun. 2 Protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners have a gun, according to the same survey. Two-thirds of gun owners (67%) say this as a major reason why they own a firearm. Considerably smaller shares say hunting (38%), sport shooting (30%), gun collecting (13%) or their job (8%) are major reasons. While men and women are about equally likely to cite protection (65% and 71%, respectively) as a major reason they own a gun, women are more likely than men to cite protection as the only reason (27% of women vs. 8% of men). Higher shares of male gun owners than female gun owners point to hunting (43% vs. 31%) and sport shooting (34% vs. 23%) as major reasons for gun ownership. Regardless of whether they live in an urban, suburban or rural area, Americans are much more likely to cite protection than other considerations as a major reason for owning a gun. Rural gun owners, however, are far more likely than their urban and suburban counterparts to say hunting is a major reason why they own a firearm (48% of rural gun owners say this, compared with 34% of suburbanites and 27% of urbanites). 3 A majority of Americans say gun laws should be stricter. Nearly six-in-ten U.S. adults (57%) say gun laws should be more strict, while smaller shares say they are about right (31%) or should be less strict (11%), according to a survey conducted in September and October 2018. Yet these views differ sharply by party: Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (80%) say gun laws should be stricter while 28% of Republicans and GOP leaners say the same. For their part, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to say gun laws are about right (52% vs. 15%) or should be less strict than they are today (20% vs. 4%). Partisans are also deeply divided over whether it is more important to control gun ownership or protect gun rights, according to the same survey. Around three-quarters of Republicans (76%) say it’s more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than it is to control gun ownership, while just 19% of Democrats agree. That 57-percentage-point partisan gap is up from a 29-point gap in 2008. 4 Many gun policy proposals are politically divisive, but there are some on which Republicans and Democrats agree, according to the fall 2018 survey. Around nine-in-ten Republicans and Democrats (both 89%) say people with mental illnesses should be prevented from buying guns. Nearly as many in both parties (86% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans) say people on federal no-fly or watch lists should be barred from purchasing firearms. And majorities of both Democrats (91%) and Republicans (79%) favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows. Other proposals bring out stark partisan rifts. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to favor allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in elementary and high schools (69% vs. 22%) and allowing people to carry concealed weapons in more places (68% vs. 26%). Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to favor banning assault-style weapons (81% vs. 50%) and high-capacity magazines (81% vs. 51%). In addition to partisanship, gun ownership also affects Americans’ views of gun policy proposals. Republicans who don’t own a gun, for example, are much more likely than GOP gun owners to favor banning assault-style weapons (65% vs. 31%) and high-capacity magazines (63% vs. 35%). Among Democrats, gun owners are more than twice as likely as those who don’t own a gun to favor expanded concealed carry (50% vs. 21%). 5 Americans are divided over whether restricting legal gun ownership would lead to fewer mass shootings. Debates over the nation’s gun laws have often followed recent mass shootings. But Americans are split over whether legal changes would lead to fewer mass shootings, according to the fall 2018 poll. Nearly half of adults (47%) say there would be fewer mass shootings if it was harder for people to obtain guns legally, while a similar share (46%) says there would be no difference. Very few (6%) say there would be more mass shootings if it was harder for people to obtain guns legally. Americans are also split on a related question about the potential impact that more Americans owning guns would have on crime more broadly. While 37% of U.S. adults say there would be more crime if more Americans owned guns, 33% say there would be no difference and 29% say there would be less crime. 6 Many Americans say they know someone who has been shot. A significant share of Americans (44%) say they personally know someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally, according to the spring 2017 survey. A majority of black adults (57%) say this, compared with 43% of whites and 42% of Hispanics. Gun owners are more likely than non-gun owners to know someone who has been shot (51% vs. 40%). Separately, about a quarter of Americans (23%) say someone has used a gun to threaten or intimidate them or someone in their family. There is again a racial gap: About a third of blacks (32%) say this, compared with 20% of whites. About a quarter of Hispanics (24%) say this has happened to them or their family members. 7 2017 saw more gun deaths in the U.S. than any year in decades, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The nearly 40,000 Americans who died of gun-related injuries in 2017 marked a 19% increase from 2012 and the highest annual total since the mid-1990s. The increase in gun deaths over five years included a 15% rise in suicides involving a gun and a 25% rise in murders involving a firearm. (The CDC data includes other categories as well, such as unintentional gun deaths and those involving police or other law enforcement agents.) Taking overall population changes into account, there were 12 firearm-related deaths for every 100,000 people in 2017, a 14% increase from five years earlier. Despite the recent increase, however, the rate of gun-related deaths was considerably higher during the early and mid-1990s: In 1993, for example, there were 15.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/ |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 11:41:09 6 Many Americans say they know someone who has been shot. A significant share of Americans (44%) say they personally know someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally, according to the spring 2017 survey. A majority of black adults (57%) say this, compared with 43% of whites and 42% of Hispanics. Gun owners are more likely than non-gun owners to know someone who has been shot (51% vs. 40%). Separately, about a quarter of Americans (23%) say someone has used a gun to threaten or intimidate them or someone in their family. There is again a racial gap: About a third of blacks (32%) say this, compared with 20% of whites. About a quarter of Hispanics (24%) say this has happened to them or their family members. I can't believe this one. 44% know someone who has been shot? There are 320,000,000 in the US which means 140,800,000 "know" someone who has been shot. My first question is what defines "know". Much like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, just exactly how far removed defines as "know"? I don't "know" anyone who has been shot. I know names of people who have been shot, but I don't "know" anyone. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/16/19 at 11:52:03 You live a very sheltered existence... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 11:52:34 You "know" someone who has been shot? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/16/19 at 12:02:57 6... thinking off hand. 2 in war if that counts. 1 accidentally shot himself in the leg. 2 by a criminal act. 1 was a DEA agent. I've had a gun pointed at me at least 3 times... Never shot though. Twice bullets were fired. Not gonna' explain those. Just to say, I'm not a criminal. Az is the land of gun nuts... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 12:18:46 No, war doesn't count. In those cases you won't explain, (I get that by the way, don't trust anyone on here with personal information) would you say they occurred in typical places or were you in what you may describe as high risk areas? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/16/19 at 12:21:30 One, you might call, "high risk"... Two, no... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 12:27:53 "However, today, I buy a gun, by choice. I own the gun, and it is totally legal. Tomorrow, it becomes, illegal. And their is a "mandatory" by back, with penalty's attached if I do not, "mandatory", give it up. The 'Choice' would not be made. In fact the 'choice' would not even be a option." No, when law changes you do not have a choice. Maybe changing law is something people should look into instead of complaining. I know it worked where I live. Bottom line is when you chose to buy a gun you knew laws existed, and could be changed, that applied to that gun. You chose to buy a gun. That same thing applies for home mortgages, speed limits, guns, wooden vs plastic toothpicks etc. If the speed limit on the street where you choose to live is 40 MPH and it is changed to 35 MPH you do have the choice to move away, or follow the law, or get a speeding ticket. JoG claims the Mandatory buyback "is violence" because if you don't comply there is violence. ' By that logic: Speed limit is violence. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 12:32:16 6375627F67727F64100 wrote:
Anyone else care to weigh in? I don't "know" anyone who's been shot. I've been shot at but that was playing around as a kid. Maybe 44% is right, but doesn't seem like it would be. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 12:35:19 I know plenty of people who have been shot, including me. Off hand I can think of 2 in high school, at least 7 or 8 when I was young in CA. This is not counting "war" or lets just say outside the US. If we count those two kids in high school, and every kid there said "Yeah I knew one of those kids" that's about 500 people that "know" someone who was shot in just one day. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 12:52:46 0B2B29213C2B4E0 wrote:
Correct, the purchase was legal. That's when the, Choice, was made. (But, 'someone', Beto ?) Changed the law. That is Confiscation. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 13:01:45 6C4C4E465B4C290 wrote:
That's my point. Using that criteria, I 'know' someone who has been shot, but that's not how I would define 'know'. Again, 320,000,000 million people in the US; 44% is 140,000,000 who 'know' someone who has been shot. The "subliminal" message behind that statistic is shootings are happening to everyone, everywhere and that's just not true. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 13:05:04 3 A majority of Americans say gun laws should be stricter. Nearly six-in-ten U.S. adults (57%) say gun laws should be more strict, while smaller shares say they are about right (31%) or should be less strict (11%), according to a survey conducted in September and October 2018. Yet these views differ sharply by party: Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (80%) say gun laws should be stricter while 28% of Republicans and GOP leaners say the same. For their part, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to say gun laws are about right (52% vs. 15%) or should be less strict than they are today (20% vs. 4%). Partisans are also deeply divided over whether it is more important to control gun ownership or protect gun rights, according to the same survey. Around three-quarters of Republicans (76%) say it’s more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than it is to control gun ownership, while just 19% of Democrats agree. That 57-percentage-point partisan gap is up from a 29-point gap in 2008. Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (80%) say gun laws should be stricter while 28% of Republicans and GOP leaners say the same Those differences are huge. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 13:25:28 "Correct, the purchase was legal. That's when the, Choice, was made. (But, 'someone', Beto ?) Changed the law. That is Confiscation." Ok. But I am talking about JoG saying that a law change "is violence" and it can only be so if it is enforced. Speed limits can change and you don't get a choice. They are enforced. So speed limits are violence. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Serowbot on 09/16/19 at 14:27:23 Gun owners are a powerful lobby for Red votes,... but they are not as universal as they think. And with every shooting, their position weakens. http://https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/shooting2_post1.png?w=620&h=152&crop=1&strip=all&quality=75 http://https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/shooting3_post2.png?w=620&h=154&crop=1&strip=all&quality=75 |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 15:03:30 7E687F627A6F62790D0 wrote:
'Some' say 22-29%. Other say 46% of American Citizens, own guns. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 15:09:26 6076617C64717C67130 wrote:
A little math is in order. 3% of the population is 9,600,000. There are an estimated 400 million guns. 50% of that is 200,000,000. Which means there are over 9 million people with an average of 21 guns each??? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/16/19 at 15:12:40 Choose to not participate You'll get violence So Violence is part of the equation Pretend it's not so |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 15:29:47 "Choose to not participate You'll get violence So Violence is part of the equation Pretend it's not so " No one is pretending, I am just calling out the wordsmithing that makes a Mandatory Buy Out sound like it is Mandatory Violence. It' only violence if you choose not to abide by the law. Like speeding. The odds will be stacked against the ones who talk instead of doing. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 15:59:48 5B7B79716C7B1E0 wrote:
(Regarding firearms, not a MPH speed) So you mean: It's only violence, if you choose, not to allow your property, to be, Confiscated ! |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/16/19 at 19:18:33 "So you mean: It's only violence, if you choose, not to allow your property, to be, Confiscated ! " Yes. But that's not what was said. What was said is a Mandatory Buyback IS violence. So speeding is also violence, and any other law that is enforced, its all violence. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by verslagen1 on 09/17/19 at 10:57:58 62417C5F5D4641482F0 wrote:
'Some' say 22-29%. Other say 46% of American Citizens, own guns.[/quote] And that's just the ones they know about. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/17/19 at 18:55:47 Funny how Going to houses Arresting illegal aliens Deporting them Impossible Going house to house Pointing guns at law abiding citizens Confiscation their property Easy That's where violence occurs |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/17/19 at 19:40:21 "Funny how Going to houses Arresting illegal aliens Deporting them Impossible Going house to house Pointing guns at law abiding citizens Confiscation their property Easy" Nobody said that. It's not easy, its a nightmare, and most likely not possible. If the law is passed they are no longer "Law Abiding" citizens. But it sure sounds better to say it that way. Too bad nobody trying to change law will take any of that seriously. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/17/19 at 20:00:53 You actually believe that just writing a law makes it okay? You're aware that a law Contrary to the constitution Is no law at all, right? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/17/19 at 21:07:14 "You actually believe that just writing a law makes it okay? You're aware that a law Contrary to the constitution Is no law at all, right?" I am. Look at what happened with DC, perfect example of that. Even though the law was eventually considered to be in violation of the 2nd, that did not mean people weren't prosecuted when it was enacted. By definition, not by spirit, ethics, interpretation, bias, concept, theory, design, structure or methodology, but by definition in and of itself, as in exclusivity, the term, "definition": people carrying without permit in DC were not "Law Abiding" If law exists, and one is not following it, they are not law abiding. By your logic all law that is enforced IS violence. Speed limit law is violence, because if I choose not to comply I get violence. Now spend just 5 minutes thinking bout the logistics of police going door to door clearing every house, apartment complex, high rise etc. in just one city and tell me anyone would ever think "door to door" gun confiscation is plausible. Nobody has ever recommended it for a reason. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/18/19 at 07:31:02 18383A322F385D0 wrote:
What was that that Beto said ? “Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15!” … (Which was fully enforced by Booker and Harris, and is now working its way into the manifestos of gun-control groups nationwide) Beto has about -99.99 chance of being president, and implementing the, Confiscation. (About the same odds as B.S.) Yet those words, which ignited this firestorm, are now, ALSO, the words of the various, gun-control groups. “Nobody is coming for your guns!” was, the mantra the UL FDS Socialists said, when people defended firearms. Now the Cat is, out of the Bag. “Nobody is coming for your guns!” is no longer true. Again, the chance of gun Confiscation is, -99.99%. YET, The frog is Jumping OUT of the pan of cold water, because the frog now KNOWS, with absolute certainly, the UL FDS Socialists Snowflakes, ARE, going to raise the water temp. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/18/19 at 13:53:47 "What was that that Beto said ?" "Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15!” " Lets use the same logic for Beto as we have been told on this very forum to use for Trump: Don't take it literally. I am very specifically saying that the police going "door to door" engaging civilians in armed shootouts on private property to confiscate guns has not been recommended by anybody. Do you really think there will be enough law enforcement to hold down just one city and clear room by room every gun from every person? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 13:56:23 Do you really think there will be enough law enforcement to hold down just one city and clear room by room every gun from every person? No. For the same reasons why the 2nd Amendment exist to begin with. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 14:16:27 If the Second Amendment indeed means "no infringement" then why are there limitations on ownership of, say, mini-guns or tanks? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 14:56:53 When teachers say there are no stupid questions, they really don't mean it.... there are and here's another. If the Second Amendment indeed means "no infringement" then why are there limitations on ownership of, say, mini-guns or tanks? For the same reason there are common sense and logical limitations on free speech, exercise of religion etc.... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 15:17:29 013334252233241B37243D560 wrote:
OK then professor, why not put limits on the AR-15 akin to a mini-gun? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by thumperclone on 09/18/19 at 15:19:04 no such thing as "common" sense |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 15:26:02 what is a mini-gun? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 15:27:30 1D2F28393E2F38072B38214A0 wrote:
LOL - and you called MY question stupid??? ;D ;D ;D Wow.... just wow. Don't ever call a question stupid unless you actually know the answer, genius. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 15:27:41 312D302835203726292A2B20450 wrote:
Oh here? Absolutely.....! You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre when there isn't one. that's the old tried and true example but today's word it might be you can't text your boyfriend into suicide like one girl did and claim free speech. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 15:28:36 243A353439243F22500 wrote:
LOL - and you called MY question stupid??? ;D ;D ;D Wow.... just wow. Don't ever call a question stupid unless you actually know the answer, genius.[/quote] That makes no sense at all, but whatever... what is a mini-gun? Never heard that phrase before, at least not since I quit playing with GI Joes. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 15:32:42 102225343322350A26352C470 wrote:
LOL - and you called MY question stupid??? ;D ;D ;D Wow.... just wow. Don't ever call a question stupid unless you actually know the answer, genius.[/quote] That makes no sense at all, but whatever... what is a mini-gun? Never heard that phrase before, at least not since I quit playing with GI Joes. [/quote] So many fitting and justified comments I could put out here now, but I won't. I'm not that petty. The Minigun fires the 7.62×51mm NATO round. At “slow” speed, the Minigun spits out 2,000 rounds per minute (6,000 at high speed, with the optimal speed being at about 3,200 rpm). Typically, you would carry about 1,500 rounds (if you were in a Humvee or helicopter) Quora |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 15:36:09 I don't pretend to know something I don't like you're doing with increasing stupidity on the other thread... but I digress... Your minigun is fully automatic. The vast majority of people I know support restrictions on fully automatic guns. I'm not sure, but I don't believe a fully automatic gun has been used in a crime in a long time. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 16:01:12 7C4E49585F4E59664A59402B0 wrote:
Again, the question - why not put the same restrictions on the AR-15 then? Look at its uses. What's it intended for? Fully automatic or not, no one "needs" an AR-15. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/18/19 at 16:48:00 "I'm not sure, but I don't believe a fully automatic gun has been used in a crime in a long time" Fully automatics are used in gang-related crime weekly. TEC-9's are still converted constantly for fully automatic use in black market circles. My experience is TEC-9's with the firing pin in backwards, Mac 10/11s converted to open bolt and Glocks with grey market select fire back plates would be most-common and easiest to acquire. The question may be how many legally owned fully automatics are used in crime and you can count those on one hand since 1934. This index provides plenty of confirmed numbers: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31 How and where to verify each report: https://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/ |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/18/19 at 17:06:15 504E41404D504B56240 wrote:
Gospel according to tt. tt says, 'no one "needs' ... so when one is not 'LOCK STEP', with tt's thoughts, One is a, ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... etc News Flash tt, The AR-15 just Looks like, a, 'bad' firearm. YET, all the laws the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes want to enact, describe, FUNCTION, not just looks. Which means, EVERY Semi-Auto Firearm, Every ONE ! No ONE, believes; “Nobody is coming for your guns!” Anymore, because the cat is out of the bag. The, DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes , Have SAID; “Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15!” … So now, EVERYONE knows, (Well except for the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes) That the GOAL of the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes, is Removal of all guns, one gun at a time. Especially firearms that LOOK LIKE, a 'real', Scary firearm. No, 'Back Tracking' to, 'not all guns', Oh, Wait, the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes, are real experts in 'hypocrisy', After all they are experts in practicing it. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 17:26:54 12310C2F2D3631385F0 wrote:
Gospel according to tt. tt says, 'no one "needs' ... so when one is not 'LOCK STEP', with tt's thoughts, One is a, ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... etc News Flash tt, The AR-15 just Looks like, a, 'bad' firearm. YET, all the laws the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes want to enact, describe, FUNCTION, not just looks. Which means, EVERY Semi-Auto Firearm, Every ONE ! No ONE, believes; “Nobody is coming for your guns!” Anymore, because the cat is out of the bag. The, DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes , Have SAID; “Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15!” … So now, EVERYONE knows, (Well except for the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes) That the GOAL of the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes, is Removal of all guns, one gun at a time. Especially firearms that LOOK LIKE, a 'real', Scary firearm. No, 'Back Tracking' to, 'not all guns', Oh, Wait, the DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes, are real experts in 'hypocrisy', After all they are experts in practicing it. [/quote] You are funny, delusional, and fearful all at the same time. You call liberals "snowflakes" yet all someone has to do is mention restricting ownership of a gun and you go batsh!t crazy. Who's the real "snowflake" mn? Like I said... funny. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/18/19 at 17:53:02 2A343B3A372A312C5E0 wrote:
"“Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15!” …" LOLOL Everyone now KNOWS the, batsh!t crazy DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes are Lying when they say: “Nobody is coming for your guns!” Because the GOAL of the, batsh!t crazy DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes, is to remove, ALL guns. It is not fear at all. It is, a FACT !!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Again, before someone gets their panties in a bunch. I believe it is 99.99% not possible that, 'someone', will go door to door to Confiscate. Just after years and years of the 'Big Lie', of, 'Nobody is coming for your guns!' The TRUTH is out, and the REAL reason has been announced. The Adults, HAVE to get control of the Democrat Party. And stop listening to the likes of AOC & BS. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 18:15:12 03201D3E3C2720294E0 wrote:
"“Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15!” …" LOLOL Everyone now KNOWS the, batsh!t crazy DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes are Lying when they say: “Nobody is coming for your guns!” Because the GOAL of the, batsh!t crazy DFI UL FDS Socialist Snowflakes, is to remove, ALL guns. It is not fear at all. It is, a FACT !!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Again, before someone gets their panties in a bunch. I believe it is 99.99% not possible that, 'someone', will go door to door to Confiscate. Just after years and years of the 'Big Lie', of, 'Nobody is coming for your guns!' The TRUTH is out, and the REAL reason has been announced. The Adults, HAVE to get control of the Democrat Party. And stop listening to the likes of AOC & BS. [/quote] Thanks for proving my point, mn - over and over and over again. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 18:35:54 Fully automatic or not, no one "needs" an AR-15. You don't get to make that decision for me. I'm pro-choice. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/19/19 at 06:01:40 6A585F4E49584F705C4F563D0 wrote:
I never said you couldn't have it. It should be restricted, that's all. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/19/19 at 07:22:57 I'll restrict its use as I see fit. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by verslagen1 on 09/19/19 at 07:50:08 2707050D1007620 wrote:
The reports don't isolate automatics, they are combined with rifles, shotguns, etc. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/19/19 at 08:33:03 665453424554437C50435A310 wrote:
Like I said - go try and just buy a minigun and see how that goes. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/19/19 at 09:25:36 You have to go through expensive permitting to get an automatic weapon. I don't want one. But I've got no problem with AR15's. None of your f'ing business if I have one or 20. As Hawkeye says in Last of the Mohicans; “Do what you want with your own scalp, and don’t be telling us what to do with ours.” ... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/19/19 at 10:12:08 043631202736211E322138530 wrote:
Oh No, ya just can't say that ! It's not PC, (According to the UL FDS Socialists) It does not mesh with the 'Lock Step' socialist ideas, (According to the UL FDS Socialists) It means you are a 'Racist' or something else, (According to the UL FDS Socialists) It means you fear something, (According to the UL FDS Socialists) It means you are a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, (According to the UL FDS Socialists) "...As Hawkeye says in Last of the Mohicans; “Do what you want with your own scalp, and don’t be telling us what to do with ours.” ..." |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/19/19 at 10:37:23 Just think about what O’Rourke said: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” Plenty of time has now passed, for the 9 others on that stage to completely disavow what O’Rourke said. But, 2 others, joined him. So all 10 of the people that want your vote, ALL 10 of them, want to CONFISCATE firearms. (The 7 others that agreed with O’Rourke by body language) ‘Prove It’, tt will certainly say. Again, plenty of time has passed for any of the 7 to disavow what O’Rourke said. None did. So what caught them off their guard ? Why aren’t they, ‘completely disavowing the confiscation of firearms’ Tell ya why. Because that is what all of them are thinking. Their GOAL was Never, ’save lives’ The Goal of the UL FDS SOCIALISTS, is to BAN guns. Again don’t get your Panties in a bunch, the possibility of going door to door, and Confiscating Guns, Is right up their with winning a Mega Lotto, three times in a row. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/19/19 at 10:57:25 Gee, here is a, ‘Common Sense’, solution. Have the National Guard, go into those, ‘areas’, which are known to have totally ileagal firearms, illegally modified firearms, And have people that have committed Murder, and are hiding from the Law. (Which no one is looking for) And TAKE, those, Illegal Firearms FIRST ! Before you say, you will Confiscate, LEGAL Firearms, from LEGAL, Law abiding Citizens ! |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/19/19 at 11:33:10 11320F2C2E35323B5C0 wrote:
Look out everyone - mn's in a panic!! But seriously - I say this with all honesty - you, of all people on here, probably own the most guns and also post the most extreme, hyperbolic content. It's actually a little scary. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/19/19 at 11:54:37 "The reports don't isolate automatics, they are combined with rifles, shotguns, etc." Correct. You would have to pull each case number and see if a weapon was positively identified. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/19/19 at 13:32:57 697778797469726F1D0 wrote:
WOW, Ya just can't wait until the, 'RED' laws come out, can ya ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/19/19 at 14:02:56 Then this happened..... Colt will stop manufacturing AR-15 assault rifle for consumer market Venerable gun manufacturer Colt says it will stop producing the AR-15, among other rifles, for the consumer market in the wake of many recent mass shootings in which suspects used the weapon. "At the end of the day, we believe it is good sense to follow consumer demand and to adjust as market dynamics change," Dennis Veilleux, president and CEO of Colt, said in a statement. "Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world." The company did not mention mass shootings in its statement about stopping production and instead blamed the indefinite pause in making the weapon on a "significant excess manufacturing capacity." "Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future," Veilleux said. So, yeah..... |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/19/19 at 16:06:12 273936373A273C21530 wrote:
As usual, you don't have the first clue why Colt said that. Here I'll SCHOOL YOU AGAIN ! 1994 the 'Look Like and the AR-15 variants were banned. Temporally, (and with NO Success) At that time their were about 30 Manufactures, variants, of the AR-15. In 2004 the BAN was lifted, and withing a year their were over 100 Manufactures/variants. The demand was so great, one had to pay fully, UP front, just to get in line. Some companies even stopped answering the phone, cause they could not take any more orders ! Today their are 500 Manufactures, of some sort of AR-15 style variants. In over three dozen calibers, Some even Shotguns. (Yes Virginia, Five Hundred) Interesting side note, their are only 6 manufactures that make Lowers. Yet they will make them to any specks you tell them to. They are the modern equivalent of Crescent Arms in the 20-30's Those variants have become one of the most popular, sold, and made firearms that ever existed. In 2004, 107,000 were made. In 2015, the number was 1.2 million. Now for MORE Schooling. Why did Colt announce that they were not going to make the AR-15 style gun. 1. To expensive to make. 2. Competition undercutting the price. 3. The latest 'Gun Ban' furry is a good time to announce. 4. Colt perceive that some of the UL Snowflakes, will spend money on buying a Colt product, because they think Colt is a nice guy. Here are some more reasons: "...The company's president and chief executive, Dennis Veilleux, said that the consumer market has "experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity," and that Colt believes there are enough rifles on the market for the foreseeable future...." "...The gun-maker said the decision is purely market-driven and made no mention of any public pressure over the AR-15's use in several mass shootings...." "...Colt will suspend production of AR-15 rifles ..." (OH tt, do you understand the word, s u s p e n d ?) "... Colt said its business remains healthy, buoyed by its numerous military and law enforcement contracts. Currently, these high-volume contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles,” the Connecticut-based company said..." "...Veilleux said in the statement the company remains committed to the second amendment and is adapting to consumer demand..." Which means Colt is not Selling enough to make a Profit. Oh that's right tt, you really don't know anything about marketing. Everyone is just suppose to 'give' things away, (According to what the DSA people Tell You to say !) |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/20/19 at 05:38:20 All that might be true Mn, but there's no way around it: they did this primarily because of the Democrat's fad of using AR15 every other sentence and their partnership with the US media. Colt's making enough money without that product so why risk all those military contracts if the Democrats win in 2020? I don't own an AR15 but I thnk I'll buy one now. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/20/19 at 06:16:12 407275646372655A76657C170 wrote:
Yep you are right, a Win/Win. Trump wins, they make money on the Government Contracts. And, perhaps, start the AR's again. A DFI UL FDS Socialist wins. They will get the Gov Contracts, because they were a , 'Nice Guy', and took the AR's off sale. "...I don't own an AR15 but I think I'll buy one now..." I don't ether, (Have a Mini14 & Mini-30) But the price has gone UP, Should have bought one, or two, with 200 round clips, Before the the DFI Statement: "“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,”" |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by T And T Garage on 09/20/19 at 06:22:48 1635082B2932353C5B0 wrote:
As usual, you don't have the first clue why Colt said that. Here I'll SCHOOL YOU AGAIN ! 1994 the 'Look Like and the AR-15 variants were banned. Temporally, (and with NO Success) At that time their were about 30 Manufactures, variants, of the AR-15. In 2004 the BAN was lifted, and withing a year their were over 100 Manufactures/variants. The demand was so great, one had to pay fully, UP front, just to get in line. Some companies even stopped answering the phone, cause they could not take any more orders ! Today their are 500 Manufactures, of some sort of AR-15 style variants. In over three dozen calibers, Some even Shotguns. (Yes Virginia, Five Hundred) Interesting side note, their are only 6 manufactures that make Lowers. Yet they will make them to any specks you tell them to. They are the modern equivalent of Crescent Arms in the 20-30's Those variants have become one of the most popular, sold, and made firearms that ever existed. In 2004, 107,000 were made. In 2015, the number was 1.2 million. Now for MORE Schooling. Why did Colt announce that they were not going to make the AR-15 style gun. 1. To expensive to make. 2. Competition undercutting the price. 3. The latest 'Gun Ban' furry is a good time to announce. 4. Colt perceive that some of the UL Snowflakes, will spend money on buying a Colt product, because they think Colt is a nice guy. Here are some more reasons: "...The company's president and chief executive, Dennis Veilleux, said that the consumer market has "experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity," and that Colt believes there are enough rifles on the market for the foreseeable future...." "...The gun-maker said the decision is purely market-driven and made no mention of any public pressure over the AR-15's use in several mass shootings...." "...Colt will suspend production of AR-15 rifles ..." (OH tt, do you understand the word, s u s p e n d ?) "... Colt said its business remains healthy, buoyed by its numerous military and law enforcement contracts. Currently, these high-volume contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles,” the Connecticut-based company said..." "...Veilleux said in the statement the company remains committed to the second amendment and is adapting to consumer demand..." Which means Colt is not Selling enough to make a Profit. Oh that's right tt, you really don't know anything about marketing. Everyone is just suppose to 'give' things away, (According to what the DSA people Tell You to say !) [/quote] Yet another ranting/raving post from mn. I posted the article with zero commentary and just the introduction, "Then this happened..." Then you go off on a tirade. (with nearly every single use of the words 'there', 'they're' and 'their' and 'to' completely wrong) My assesment of you is correct, sadly. Am I the only one seeing this? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by Eegore on 09/20/19 at 06:42:55 Given the current social climate I don't know why anyone wouldn't have bought extra AR's to sell. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/20/19 at 06:49:45 3A242B2A273A213C4E0 wrote:
Gee, so happy, I am 'under your skin', ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by MnSpring on 09/20/19 at 06:56:17 736D62636E736875070 wrote:
Thanks for continuing to repeat, the same post, for me. Perhaps someone will read, and explain them to you ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/20/19 at 07:06:46 725250584552370 wrote:
Exactly. But a mini 14 is pretty darn cool, but it doesn’t scare snowflakes so won’t double or triple on value. |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by verslagen1 on 09/20/19 at 07:42:19 What's that old axiom? An artists paintings are worth more after they're dead? |
|
Title: Re: we’re going to take your (GUN) Post by WebsterMark on 09/20/19 at 07:50:42 574453524D4046444F10210 wrote:
True dat... |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |