***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[timschochet]

The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3.

Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

There's no big 3 being debated. There's several more compelling ideas than this old news. We know what you think because you've told us about 70 times in this thread. No one else has been so redundant. Your 1 and 3 are the same thing. The AWB did not ban ARs or AKs or any other rifles. It limited mags to ten rounds and made owners choose between scary accessories like pistol grips and adjustable stocks. AR/Bushmaster sales were brisk during the AWB. That is the only thing your desired legislation will accomplish. We know this because we've tried it. We know this because it is happening right now under the mere threat of another toothless mag limit.

Also, you are for an "assault weapons" ban, btw. By the definition of that term, a legal definition established by the 94 ban, assault weapons are semi automatics with greater than 10 round magazines. That was the key to the ban.

I don't want to regurgitate arguments with you; we respectfully disagree. My point in that post was that none of this had anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. Do you agree?

 

[timschochet]

Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland?

I have to comment on this. It's amazing to me how pro-gun fanatics constantly re-write history. This argument is probably even more absurd than how the German Jews were armed to the teeth until Hitler got there. For the record: the reason that Japan did not attack the United States mainland was the same reason the United States did not consider attacking the Japanese mainland until 1945- distance. In order to invade, you need control of the air and sea close by. And you need landing craft by the thousands. Japan didn't have any of that. Japan did invade China, whose citizens had plenty of rifles thanks to warlords fighting each other. England was another story: after Dunkirk, England had virtually no rifles for it's army, much less it's private citizens. Yet the Nazis were unable to invade across a short body of water.

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

So basically you are saying you have no clue about the history and purpose of the 2nd amendment. I absolutely disagree with your 2nd paragraph.

####### unbelievable. Do you realize that, by disagreeing with my 2nd paragraph you come off with about as much credibility as a Holocaust denier?

Sorry I meant your 3rd paragraph, my bad.

Ah, well then I take back what I wrote. We still disagree, and very strongly, but at least I respect your POV here.

 

[timschochet]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

Would it PREVENT a dictatorship? Perhaps not. Could it deter, delay, and give me the best damn fighting chance to preserve my freedom against one? Absolutely.Don't want you nor anyone taking away that right in a theoretical sense. Second, I think it is the combination of an armed forces that truly is representative of the populace AND an armed citizenry that provide the best means to deter and overcome an attempt at dictatorship.

That's fine, we disagree pretty strongly on this. But even if you're right, the idea that limiting magazine capacity and removing the private sales loophole would somehow harm the notion of an armed citizenry is really such a stretch that even you can see- do you agree with that?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

This is a TODAY headline:

This is one place an AR 15 with 30 round magazines would be helpful for personal protection.

3 days of Rioting and Looting across Argentina

Its not as if some looting surprises anyone in Argentina anymore. Its pretty much a fact of life for Argentines. But it has been three days now of widespread looting across the country, from Buenos Aires and its suburbs, to smaller provinces as far as Bariloche where incidents first started.

As always supermarkets, gas stations and smaller stores are favorite targets by looters and there’s also been reports of assaults and robberies as well. Two people have been killed in Rosario during the lootings and the government is deploying military personal across the country so as to protect supermarkets and avoid the “contagion” effect. This could be described as the perception that the authorities have lost control of the streets and everyone feels it’s a “free for all” time when looting can go unpunished. Unfortunately that observation isn’t far from the truth.

I don’t know what it is. Maybe its a combination of heat, blackouts, disruptions in the water supply and the yearly 25% inflation that hits people the most during holyday times, but these widespread lootings usually take place during summer.

What to do when something like this happens, you may ask? Stay put, leave lights on so that its clear your house isn’t unoccupied ready for easy picking. Hopefully, have a firearm in case anyone is feeling particularly courageous and needs some flying lead to be remembered of his own mortality. “Ferfal, should I bug out, make a run for it, as seen on this or that reality tv show?” Leaving a defendable position is pretty stupid to begin with. Then there’s the problem of traffic jams due to the rioting and probably some roadblocks. Being stuck in traffic is bad. Being stuck in traffic during a lawless riot is even worse. I’ve seen how they start robbing and carjacking everyone stuck in traffic, going car by car robbing everyone’s wallets, purses, jewelry and cell phones. You also risk getting pulled out of your vehicle, getting beaten, even killed. So no, stay put.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

From a pragmatic perspective the idea that dueto our gun ownership we are going to stop some sort of governmental takeover is pretty naive IMO

 

[LTsharks]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

of course. we all know how calm and peaceful Iraq and Afghanistan are because of our sophisticated weaponry. it really is that simple. have the sophisticated weapons and you can impose your will on any population.

 

[timschochet]

Mr. Two Cents, I also wanted to answer your question about what percent of sales falls under the private sales "gun show" loophole. According to Governor Duval Patrick of Massachutsetts, 40% of all firearms transactions are private sales and go unrecorded. I just saw him say this on CNN; I don't know his source.

If he's close to accurate, 40% is an even larger number than I had previously supposed. We really need to close this loophole. I'm really disappointed that the NRA leadership fights this idea so strongly (though the rank and file are largely in favor.)

 

[urbanhack]

This is a TODAY headline: This is one place an AR 15 with 30 round magazines would be helpful for personal protection.

3 days of Rioting and Looting across ArgentinaIts not as if some looting surprises anyone in Argentina anymore. Its pretty much a fact of life for Argentines. But it has been three days now of widespread looting across the country, from Buenos Aires and its suburbs, to smaller provinces as far as Bariloche where incidents first started.As always supermarkets, gas stations and smaller stores are favorite targets by looters and there’s also been reports of assaults and robberies as well. Two people have been killed in Rosario during the lootings and the government is deploying military personal across the country so as to protect supermarkets and avoid the “contagion” effect. This could be described as the perception that the authorities have lost control of the streets and everyone feels it’s a “free for all” time when looting can go unpunished. Unfortunately that observation isn’t far from the truth.I don’t know what it is. Maybe its a combination of heat, blackouts, disruptions in the water supply and the yearly 25% inflation that hits people the most during holyday times, but these widespread lootings usually take place during summer.What to do when something like this happens, you may ask? Stay put, leave lights on so that its clear your house isn’t unoccupied ready for easy picking. Hopefully, have a firearm in case anyone is feeling particularly courageous and needs some flying lead to be remembered of his own mortality. “Ferfal, should I bug out, make a run for it, as seen on this or that reality tv show?” Leaving a defendable position is pretty stupid to begin with. Then there’s the problem of traffic jams due to the rioting and probably some roadblocks. Being stuck in traffic is bad. Being stuck in traffic during a lawless riot is even worse. I’ve seen how they start robbing and carjacking everyone stuck in traffic, going car by car robbing everyone’s wallets, purses, jewelry and cell phones. You also risk getting pulled out of your vehicle, getting beaten, even killed. So no, stay put.

When do you anticipate the wide-spread looting to start?

 

[Slingblade]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

Just like they apprehended all the afghan terrorists? Right? Amiright?

 

[urbanhack]

Just in case, right?

 

[Slingblade]

Just in case, right?

Because it has never happened ever in history? Right? Amiright? Guys?

 

[Koya]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

Would it PREVENT a dictatorship? Perhaps not. Could it deter, delay, and give me the best damn fighting chance to preserve my freedom against one? Absolutely.Don't want you nor anyone taking away that right in a theoretical sense. Second, I think it is the combination of an armed forces that truly is representative of the populace AND an armed citizenry that provide the best means to deter and overcome an attempt at dictatorship.

That's fine, we disagree pretty strongly on this. But even if you're right, the idea that limiting magazine capacity and removing the private sales loophole would somehow harm the notion of an armed citizenry is really such a stretch that even you can see- do you agree with that?

It's become apparent that our current system doesnt work. Things I think I know:1. We need better registration methods, tracking, training, follow up etc. for gun ownership. Much better regulation here needed. Make sure only well trained, qualified and capable people have guns.2. We need to better understand the causes. Can't dismiss anything out of hand. Is it the thousands or millions of violent impressions male's have and engage in (i.e. not just watch, but actual play out in graphic ways) which might tilt someone predisposed to act like this? Where is the role of mental illness, which is a much larger and more encompassing issue (probably a more important conversation than gun control, to be honest). 3. We MAY have to limit the types of guns/ammo that is out there - to your point, I do believe we are pushed too far to the side of more highly powerful weaponry being available than should be. And I think we would still hold the promise of self defense in a very meaningful way with some modifications of what guns are available, with two key caveats: (a) By having more stringent regulations and not having guns get into the wrong hands, you could allow a wider range of weaponry and (b) perhaps another solution, to the idea of a "well regulated MILITIA" would be some limit on individual ownership (but still have the ability to own handguns, etc), but an organized group, that demonstrates complete safety measures, for example, could holster more powerful weapons.This way, you have your militia, more well armed, for protection of our freedom and society... but they are not so rampant individually, and we see where that leads. Even in areas with decreasing murder rates, we need to do more.

 

[urbanhack]

Just in case, right?

Because it has never happened ever in history? Right? Amiright? Guys?

Do you know why it happened?

 

[Koya]

This is a TODAY headline: This is one place an AR 15 with 30 round magazines would be helpful for personal protection.

3 days of Rioting and Looting across ArgentinaIts not as if some looting surprises anyone in Argentina anymore. Its pretty much a fact of life for Argentines. But it has been three days now of widespread looting across the country, from Buenos Aires and its suburbs, to smaller provinces as far as Bariloche where incidents first started.As always supermarkets, gas stations and smaller stores are favorite targets by looters and there’s also been reports of assaults and robberies as well. Two people have been killed in Rosario during the lootings and the government is deploying military personal across the country so as to protect supermarkets and avoid the “contagion” effect. This could be described as the perception that the authorities have lost control of the streets and everyone feels it’s a “free for all” time when looting can go unpunished. Unfortunately that observation isn’t far from the truth.I don’t know what it is. Maybe its a combination of heat, blackouts, disruptions in the water supply and the yearly 25% inflation that hits people the most during holyday times, but these widespread lootings usually take place during summer.What to do when something like this happens, you may ask? Stay put, leave lights on so that its clear your house isn’t unoccupied ready for easy picking. Hopefully, have a firearm in case anyone is feeling particularly courageous and needs some flying lead to be remembered of his own mortality. “Ferfal, should I bug out, make a run for it, as seen on this or that reality tv show?” Leaving a defendable position is pretty stupid to begin with. Then there’s the problem of traffic jams due to the rioting and probably some roadblocks. Being stuck in traffic is bad. Being stuck in traffic during a lawless riot is even worse. I’ve seen how they start robbing and carjacking everyone stuck in traffic, going car by car robbing everyone’s wallets, purses, jewelry and cell phones. You also risk getting pulled out of your vehicle, getting beaten, even killed. So no, stay put.

When do you anticipate the wide-spread looting to start?

This is an unfortunate red herring imo.For one, if we have "widespread looting" then sadly the last of our collective concerns are a few more families being protected in the wash of anarchy. More to the point, not only would you be protecting yourself, but waves of rioters who are as well or more well armed than you, with total disregard for anyone's life, are on the other side.Not sure this helps your position.

 

[timschochet]

I think I pointed out a couple nights ago that no matter how this topic starts (what kinds of gun control methods might make sense) it inevitably becomes a discussion about whether or not private citizens can defend themselves against a dictatorship. And before we know it, suddenly we're Afghanistan, or Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (that's been brought up as well.) It's just incredible to me that so many of you gun owners perceive yourselves as future victims.

 

[urbanhack]

I think I pointed out a couple nights ago that no matter how this topic starts (what kinds of gun control methods might make sense) it inevitably becomes a discussion about whether or not private citizens can defend themselves against a dictatorship. And before we know it, suddenly we're Afghanistan, or Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (that's been brought up as well.) It's just incredible to me that so many of you gun owners perceive yourselves as future victims.

Thank you.It's ####### nuts.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

Would it PREVENT a dictatorship? Perhaps not. Could it deter, delay, and give me the best damn fighting chance to preserve my freedom against one? Absolutely.Don't want you nor anyone taking away that right in a theoretical sense. Second, I think it is the combination of an armed forces that truly is representative of the populace AND an armed citizenry that provide the best means to deter and overcome an attempt at dictatorship.

2.2 million armed people spread across MI, WI, PA, and WV would be pretty hard to control. Not to mention Texas, arizona, wyoming and alaska.

 

[timschochet]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

I wrote this earlier today as satire. But is it satire?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Mr. Two Cents, I also wanted to answer your question about what percent of sales falls under the private sales "gun show" loophole. According to Governor Duval Patrick of Massachutsetts, 40% of all firearms transactions are private sales and go unrecorded. I just saw him say this on CNN; I don't know his source. If he's close to accurate, 40% is an even larger number than I had previously supposed. We really need to close this loophole. I'm really disappointed that the NRA leadership fights this idea so strongly (though the rank and file are largely in favor.)

I seriously doubt those numbers. Like I said all mine are legal and most everyone I know owns guns and they are "mostly" all legal. With all the stores, gun shows, online sales I don't believe his numbers at all.There is a gun show this weekend and next weekend and last 2 weekends in Houston. Thousands of guns have and will legally be sold there. Add in Walmart, Academy and the thousands of brick and mortar gun shops and I call BS on a figure anywhere near double digits. What about gifts to sons and guns handed down generation to generation?

 

[Slingblade]

I think I pointed out a couple nights ago that no matter how this topic starts (what kinds of gun control methods might make sense) it inevitably becomes a discussion about whether or not private citizens can defend themselves against a dictatorship. And before we know it, suddenly we're Afghanistan, or Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (that's been brought up as well.) It's just incredible to me that so many of you gun owners perceive yourselves as future victims.

As the guy in the video above stated..."If I told you two days before 9/11 happened that passengers planes would be fling into the twin towers, would you believe me?"While I find it highly unlikely ever to happen in my lifetime, it could. Do I worry about it 24/7 and base my life around it happening? No.But you still never know.

 

[Slingblade]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

I wrote this earlier today as satire. But is it satire?

 

[urbanhack]

I think I pointed out a couple nights ago that no matter how this topic starts (what kinds of gun control methods might make sense) it inevitably becomes a discussion about whether or not private citizens can defend themselves against a dictatorship. And before we know it, suddenly we're Afghanistan, or Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (that's been brought up as well.) It's just incredible to me that so many of you gun owners perceive yourselves as future victims.

As the guy in the video above stated..."If I told you two days before 9/11 happened that passengers planes would be fling into the twin towers, would you believe me?"While I find it highly unlikely ever to happen in my lifetime, it could. Do I worry about it 24/7 and base my life around it happening? No.But you still never know.

Where do you live?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

This is a TODAY headline: This is one place an AR 15 with 30 round magazines would be helpful for personal protection.

3 days of Rioting and Looting across ArgentinaIts not as if some looting surprises anyone in Argentina anymore. Its pretty much a fact of life for Argentines. But it has been three days now of widespread looting across the country, from Buenos Aires and its suburbs, to smaller provinces as far as Bariloche where incidents first started.As always supermarkets, gas stations and smaller stores are favorite targets by looters and there’s also been reports of assaults and robberies as well. Two people have been killed in Rosario during the lootings and the government is deploying military personal across the country so as to protect supermarkets and avoid the “contagion” effect. This could be described as the perception that the authorities have lost control of the streets and everyone feels it’s a “free for all” time when looting can go unpunished. Unfortunately that observation isn’t far from the truth.I don’t know what it is. Maybe its a combination of heat, blackouts, disruptions in the water supply and the yearly 25% inflation that hits people the most during holyday times, but these widespread lootings usually take place during summer.What to do when something like this happens, you may ask? Stay put, leave lights on so that its clear your house isn’t unoccupied ready for easy picking. Hopefully, have a firearm in case anyone is feeling particularly courageous and needs some flying lead to be remembered of his own mortality. “Ferfal, should I bug out, make a run for it, as seen on this or that reality tv show?” Leaving a defendable position is pretty stupid to begin with. Then there’s the problem of traffic jams due to the rioting and probably some roadblocks. Being stuck in traffic is bad. Being stuck in traffic during a lawless riot is even worse. I’ve seen how they start robbing and carjacking everyone stuck in traffic, going car by car robbing everyone’s wallets, purses, jewelry and cell phones. You also risk getting pulled out of your vehicle, getting beaten, even killed. So no, stay put.

When do you anticipate the wide-spread looting to start?

We are always 3 day away from anarchy, when those three 3 days begin is anyone's guess.

 

[urbanhack]

Thanks for the new sig.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3.

Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

There's no big 3 being debated. There's several more compelling ideas than this old news. We know what you think because you've told us about 70 times in this thread. No one else has been so redundant. Your 1 and 3 are the same thing. The AWB did not ban ARs or AKs or any other rifles. It limited mags to ten rounds and made owners choose between scary accessories like pistol grips and adjustable stocks. AR/Bushmaster sales were brisk during the AWB. That is the only thing your desired legislation will accomplish. We know this because we've tried it. We know this because it is happening right now under the mere threat of another toothless mag limit.

Also, you are for an "assault weapons" ban, btw. By the definition of that term, a legal definition established by the 94 ban, assault weapons are semi automatics with greater than 10 round magazines. That was the key to the ban.

I don't want to regurgitate arguments with you; we respectfully disagree. My point in that post was that none of this had anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. Do you agree?

I provided facts. That's what you're disagreeing with. In the least admit you are effectively supporting the 94 AWB legislation. I do think restricting mag limits violates the spirit of the 2nd amendment, but I'm not interested in that debate (interpretation), because I don't care that much. I'm for making all sales go through an FFL, but I understand criminals will never comply. Do you get that?

 

[Slingblade]

I think I pointed out a couple nights ago that no matter how this topic starts (what kinds of gun control methods might make sense) it inevitably becomes a discussion about whether or not private citizens can defend themselves against a dictatorship. And before we know it, suddenly we're Afghanistan, or Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (that's been brought up as well.) It's just incredible to me that so many of you gun owners perceive yourselves as future victims.

As the guy in the video above stated..."If I told you two days before 9/11 happened that passengers planes would be fling into the twin towers, would you believe me?"While I find it highly unlikely ever to happen in my lifetime, it could. Do I worry about it 24/7 and base my life around it happening? No.But you still never know.

Where do you live?

Why does that matter?ETA: See left.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

Would it PREVENT a dictatorship? Perhaps not. Could it deter, delay, and give me the best damn fighting chance to preserve my freedom against one? Absolutely.Don't want you nor anyone taking away that right in a theoretical sense. Second, I think it is the combination of an armed forces that truly is representative of the populace AND an armed citizenry that provide the best means to deter and overcome an attempt at dictatorship.

That's fine, we disagree pretty strongly on this. But even if you're right, the idea that limiting magazine capacity and removing the private sales loophole would somehow harm the notion of an armed citizenry is really such a stretch that even you can see- do you agree with that?

It's become apparent that our current system doesnt work. Things I think I know:1. We need better registration methods, tracking, training, follow up etc. for gun ownership. Much better regulation here needed. Make sure only well trained, qualified and capable people have guns.2. We need to better understand the causes. Can't dismiss anything out of hand. Is it the thousands or millions of violent impressions male's have and engage in (i.e. not just watch, but actual play out in graphic ways) which might tilt someone predisposed to act like this? Where is the role of mental illness, which is a much larger and more encompassing issue (probably a more important conversation than gun control, to be honest). 3. We MAY have to limit the types of guns/ammo that is out there - to your point, I do believe we are pushed too far to the side of more highly powerful weaponry being available than should be. And I think we would still hold the promise of self defense in a very meaningful way with some modifications of what guns are available, with two key caveats: (a) By having more stringent regulations and not having guns get into the wrong hands, you could allow a wider range of weaponry and (b) perhaps another solution, to the idea of a "well regulated MILITIA" would be some limit on individual ownership (but still have the ability to own handguns, etc), but an organized group, that demonstrates complete safety measures, for example, could holster more powerful weapons.This way, you have your militia, more well armed, for protection of our freedom and society... but they are not so rampant individually, and we see where that leads. Even in areas with decreasing murder rates, we need to do more.

I strongly disagree with "part" of #1 and most of #3, your "militia" was exactly what the 2nd amendment fought against BUT I am old and tired and need to go to bed. If I can remember I will try again tomorrow.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Here is what I'm seeing:

The anti-gun posters want to have a so-called "adult" conversation about guns and where we should draw the line. The problem is we've drawn the line how many times now? Every time some criminal or nut job shoots someone, the anti-gun crowd wants to have another "adult" conversation and wants to draw line once again.

It will never stop until they get to a total (or virtual) ban. That's the end game.

The line is fine and doesn't need to be redrawn.

 

[urbanhack]

Compelling.

When is the last time we drew a line?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Compelling. When is the last time we drew a line?

So we simply draw a line to draw a line? To satisfy some knee-jerk emotional need? Weapons are already well regulated, that was my point. Between federal and state laws it's plenty.It's time to focus on the criminals and crazies, not law abiding citizens.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad.

It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

I wrote this earlier today as satire. But is it satire?

You have 58K posts and still need aliases? You're a tool

 

[pantherclub]

I dont have much to contribute to this thread but I just watched the NRA press conference and holy hell that dude didnt do his organization any favors. Why trot that moron out there at all?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad. It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

You have it backasswards, we don't have to live in fear because we are capable of defending our lives, families and property.The FBI Says: (October 16, 2012) Every 12 seconds a home is invaded6,646 break-ins every dayOver 3.5 million burglaries per year13% of homes are burglarized per year85% of all break-ins are through through the door67% of all burglaries involved forcible entry38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion60% of all rapes occur during a home invasion70% of burglaries involve residential propertiesBurglaries happen between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.Home Invasions happen between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

 

[Dvorak]

Mr. Two Cents, I also wanted to answer your question about what percent of sales falls under the private sales "gun show" loophole. According to Governor Duval Patrick of Massachutsetts, 40% of all firearms transactions are private sales and go unrecorded. I just saw him say this on CNN; I don't know his source.

If he's close to accurate, 40% is an even larger number than I had previously supposed. We really need to close this loophole. I'm really disappointed that the NRA leadership fights this idea so strongly (though the rank and file are largely in favor.)

If you continue to refuse to back up this claim, I am going to have to insist you stop using it unless you are simply trying to be a troll and avoid serious debate.

 

[Blick]

The only idea discussed in this thread, in my opinion, that may have any impact on gun violence is closing the private sale loop-hole. Even that would that would really only effect those law biding citizens with the lowest potential to act in a gun crime.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Mr. Two Cents, I also wanted to answer your question about what percent of sales falls under the private sales "gun show" loophole. According to Governor Duval Patrick of Massachutsetts, 40% of all firearms transactions are private sales and go unrecorded. I just saw him say this on CNN; I don't know his source.

If he's close to accurate, 40% is an even larger number than I had previously supposed. We really need to close this loophole. I'm really disappointed that the NRA leadership fights this idea so strongly (though the rank and file are largely in favor.)

If you continue to refuse to back up this claim, I am going to have to insist you stop using it unless you are simply trying to be a troll and avoid serious debate.

Here is the most recent survey demonstrating this: link

 

[MaxThreshold]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad. It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

Who's the one calling for banning guns or severely restricting the 2nd amendment? Sounds like you're the one that's scared, not gun owners.

 

[Dvorak]

Mr. Two Cents, I also wanted to answer your question about what percent of sales falls under the private sales "gun show" loophole. According to Governor Duval Patrick of Massachutsetts, 40% of all firearms transactions are private sales and go unrecorded. I just saw him say this on CNN; I don't know his source.

If he's close to accurate, 40% is an even larger number than I had previously supposed. We really need to close this loophole. I'm really disappointed that the NRA leadership fights this idea so strongly (though the rank and file are largely in favor.)

If you continue to refuse to back up this claim, I am going to have to insist you stop using it unless you are simply trying to be a troll and avoid serious debate.

Here is the most recent survey demonstrating this: link

Thanks. You'll have to forgive me if I look at a survey done for Mayors Against Illegal Guns with the ol' squinty eyes.And I think I found the source of the 40% of all gun sales go unreported... It's a phone survey from 1994. And that 40% includes gifts/trades/purchases from friends (12%) and family members (17%)

 

[RCon]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Honestly, I sincerely doubt it. And even if it does happen, the ban will almost certainly be only on new equipment, with existing stuff grandfathered.

 

[Apple Jack]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Honestly, I sincerely doubt it. And even if it does happen, the ban will almost certainly be only on new equipment, with existing stuff grandfathered.

Yeah, they need to make sure to not allow this grandfathered nonsense.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Politically potent Hollywood escapes heavy scrutiny in wake of shooting

In the wake of last week's Connecticut school shooting, many in the media and on Capitol Hill blamed one powerful lobby, the gun industry, and suggested banning assault weapons would lead to safer streets.

"On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons," Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., said.

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said "people on the far-right, on the NRA front ... they go to bed at night ... afraid somebody's going to take that gun away from them. Normal people have other interests."

On CNN, host Piers Morgan called Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt "an unbelievably stupid man."

Yet, there's another powerful lobby in Washington that few scrutinize, let alone criticize: Hollywood, though many argue the movie and video game industry also bears responsibility for incidents of adolescent violence.

"Hollywood is very touchy about the idea of taking responsibility for the stuff it actually does," Parents Television Council's Dan Isett said. "What happened in Newton is absolutely heartbreaking. It shouldn't take an instance like that to have 20 dead children that just went to school that morning, to have a real discussion about why this happened. To have a real discussion about what media does to our kids."

Not unlike the NRA, lawmakers fear the Motion Picture Association of America and their political allies. Consider the clout and fundraising acumen of producer Harvey Weinstein, a major heavyweight in Democratic politics, along with actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have acted in or produced violent films.

In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, MPAA CEO Chris Dodd released this statement Thursday: "Those of us in the motion picture and television industry want to do our part to help America heal. We stand ready to be part of the national conversation."

But the industry in the past has defended its First Amendment right to publish without fear of government interference as aggressively as the NRA has defended members' Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"Obviously gun control is part of the debate. Mental health is part of the debate. The fact that movie violence is not part of the debate is a big problem," said Noah Gittell, a former Democratic campaign staffer who now writes about Hollywood for Reelchange.net.

Though numerous studies link violence on the screen to violent behavior, an interview with director Quentin Tarantino last week typifies Hollywood's position on the issue -- minimizing the role films play in the violent incidents carried out by young male gunmen in Newton, Conn.; Aurora and Littleton, Colo.; and other cities.

"I just think, you know, there's violence in the world, tragedies happen, (so society) blame(s) the playmakers," Tarantino said when asked about Hollywood's impact on behavior during a screening of his latest violent movie, "Django Unchained".

"Is that a question you're tired of?" asked a reporter.

"Yeah, I'm really tired. It's a western. Give me a break."

Others disagree, arguing that content matters. The depiction of violence as a means of resolving conflict on the screen can cause viewers to act out in a similar way, they say. Yet, the movie and video game industry spends millions so Congress does not change the current system of self regulation that labels content violent or not.

"Big media companies spend literally tens of millions of dollars virtually every month, lobbying in Washington and around the country to make sure that they maintain the status quo," Isett said.

Since 1998, America's five largest film studios contributed $41 million dollars to political candidates, compared with $16 million from the NRA, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

On lobbying, the watchdog group said the MPAA spent $25 million since 1990 compared with $29 million by the NRA. The Entertainment Software Association, representing the video game industry, spent $4.4 million last year alone. That money has largely kept Congress off their backs, despite pressure from parental groups to fight the increasing violence their children are exposed to.

"There's a fear of confronting, taking on a controversial subject which is so profoundly important to get done and get done right. It baffles me," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. "It's urgent and it is not being responded to by the membership of the Congress appropriately."

Some advocacy groups have proposed a mandated ratings system that requires any movie with a murder scene get an R rating. Consider the violent Batman movie "Dark Knight." Dozens died in the movie, often graphically, but it got a PG-13 rating. Others tried to end the voluntary rating system for video games -- a $11 billion a year business. That, too, was shot down.

"It's pretty clear the MPAA does have an influence," Gittell said. "If Congress wants the MPAA to do something, they can give them a nudge in the right direction. But I do think the massive contributions members of Congress get from Hollywood would pre-empt them from ever taking full regulatory authority."

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad. It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

You have it backasswards, we don't have to live in fear because we are capable of defending our lives, families and property.The FBI Says: (October 16, 2012) Every 12 seconds a home is invaded6,646 break-ins every dayOver 3.5 million burglaries per year13% of homes are burglarized per year85% of all break-ins are through through the door67% of all burglaries involved forcible entry38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion60% of all rapes occur during a home invasion70% of burglaries involve residential propertiesBurglaries happen between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.Home Invasions happen between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

I had my $30K vehicle stolen from my driveway - AFTER they broke in to my home and and stole about $10K of other property. That is why I have insurance. Even after that experience, I have ZERO desire to own a weapon. Maybe if I was a hunter I would own one - but certainly not for home defense. Stuff is just stuff. I figure I can hold them off long enough for the wife to call the cops in the unlikely event that it escalated to the point of confrontation. Maybe I would feel different if I was living in a more urban setting where crime rates are higher - but where I am at th ecriminals hit and run when you are not at home so if you do own a weapon that is just one more thing they steal.

 

[jurb26]

Politically potent Hollywood escapes heavy scrutiny in wake of shootingIn the wake of last week's Connecticut school shooting, many in the media and on Capitol Hill blamed one powerful lobby, the gun industry, and suggested banning assault weapons would lead to safer streets."On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons," Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., said.On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said "people on the far-right, on the NRA front ... they go to bed at night ... afraid somebody's going to take that gun away from them. Normal people have other interests."On CNN, host Piers Morgan called Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt "an unbelievably stupid man."Yet, there's another powerful lobby in Washington that few scrutinize, let alone criticize: Hollywood, though many argue the movie and video game industry also bears responsibility for incidents of adolescent violence."Hollywood is very touchy about the idea of taking responsibility for the stuff it actually does," Parents Television Council's Dan Isett said. "What happened in Newton is absolutely heartbreaking. It shouldn't take an instance like that to have 20 dead children that just went to school that morning, to have a real discussion about why this happened. To have a real discussion about what media does to our kids."Not unlike the NRA, lawmakers fear the Motion Picture Association of America and their political allies. Consider the clout and fundraising acumen of producer Harvey Weinstein, a major heavyweight in Democratic politics, along with actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have acted in or produced violent films.In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, MPAA CEO Chris Dodd released this statement Thursday: "Those of us in the motion picture and television industry want to do our part to help America heal. We stand ready to be part of the national conversation."But the industry in the past has defended its First Amendment right to publish without fear of government interference as aggressively as the NRA has defended members' Second Amendment right to bear arms."Obviously gun control is part of the debate. Mental health is part of the debate. The fact that movie violence is not part of the debate is a big problem," said Noah Gittell, a former Democratic campaign staffer who now writes about Hollywood for Reelchange.net.Though numerous studies link violence on the screen to violent behavior, an interview with director Quentin Tarantino last week typifies Hollywood's position on the issue -- minimizing the role films play in the violent incidents carried out by young male gunmen in Newton, Conn.; Aurora and Littleton, Colo.; and other cities."I just think, you know, there's violence in the world, tragedies happen, (so society) blame(s) the playmakers," Tarantino said when asked about Hollywood's impact on behavior during a screening of his latest violent movie, "Django Unchained". "Is that a question you're tired of?" asked a reporter."Yeah, I'm really tired. It's a western. Give me a break."Others disagree, arguing that content matters. The depiction of violence as a means of resolving conflict on the screen can cause viewers to act out in a similar way, they say. Yet, the movie and video game industry spends millions so Congress does not change the current system of self regulation that labels content violent or not."Big media companies spend literally tens of millions of dollars virtually every month, lobbying in Washington and around the country to make sure that they maintain the status quo," Isett said.Since 1998, America's five largest film studios contributed $41 million dollars to political candidates, compared with $16 million from the NRA, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. On lobbying, the watchdog group said the MPAA spent $25 million since 1990 compared with $29 million by the NRA. The Entertainment Software Association, representing the video game industry, spent $4.4 million last year alone. That money has largely kept Congress off their backs, despite pressure from parental groups to fight the increasing violence their children are exposed to."There's a fear of confronting, taking on a controversial subject which is so profoundly important to get done and get done right. It baffles me," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. "It's urgent and it is not being responded to by the membership of the Congress appropriately."Some advocacy groups have proposed a mandated ratings system that requires any movie with a murder scene get an R rating. Consider the violent Batman movie "Dark Knight." Dozens died in the movie, often graphically, but it got a PG-13 rating. Others tried to end the voluntary rating system for video games -- a $11 billion a year business. That, too, was shot down."It's pretty clear the MPAA does have an influence," Gittell said. "If Congress wants the MPAA to do something, they can give them a nudge in the right direction. But I do think the massive contributions members of Congress get from Hollywood would pre-empt them from ever taking full regulatory authority."

Thanks for sharing, good read. The way our media has treated this gun issue is ridiculous.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad. It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

Who's the one calling for banning guns or severely restricting the 2nd amendment? Sounds like you're the one that's scared, not gun owners.

Both sides are scared, we're just scared of different things. You guys are scared of "bad guys" We're scared of you.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I am shocked that hollywood does not draw fire from democrats. That is very strange indeed. Maybe I should create an alias and write something satirical about that.

 

[boots11234]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad. It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

Who's the one calling for banning guns or severely restricting the 2nd amendment? Sounds like you're the one that's scared, not gun owners.

Both sides are scared, we're just scared of different things. You guys are scared of "bad guys" We're scared of you.

I'd be scared of drunk drivers, distracted drivers and swimming poos as i am pretty certain they kill more children in a year then gun owners. Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.Now honestly gun ban folks, can you say your desire to ban guns is not an emotionally driven response based on the above info? Have you ever demanded we ban swimming? Swimming is an enjoyable hobby for some just like shooting is to others.

 

[Dvorak]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad. It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

Who's the one calling for banning guns or severely restricting the 2nd amendment? Sounds like you're the one that's scared, not gun owners.

Both sides are scared, we're just scared of different things. You guys are scared of "bad guys" We're scared of you.

Reminds me of a proverb--The enemy of my enemy is my friend.Anti-gunners & bad guys, fighting American gun owners since 1776.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I feel kind of sorry for a lot of gun owners...living in such fear all the time must be draining .Scared that some bad men are going to try and kill you and your family. Scared that the government is going to take all your rights away and try to kill you. Scared that people might try and take your guns away,so you dare them to..."go ahead and try to take my guns and see what happens'. Always looking over your shoulders,waiting for the inevitable day you will need your gun. Hanging onto the 2nd amendment like a life preserver. Its really sad. It almost seems like you are all waiting for something bad to happen where you would need to use your gun,to justify all your fears.

Who's the one calling for banning guns or severely restricting the 2nd amendment? Sounds like you're the one that's scared, not gun owners.

Both sides are scared, we're just scared of different things. You guys are scared of "bad guys" We're scared of you.

I'd be scared of drunk drivers, distracted drivers and swimming poos as i am pretty certain they kill more children in a year then gun owners. Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.Now honestly gun ban folks, can you say your desire to ban guns is not an emotionally driven response based on the above info? Have you ever demanded we ban swimming? Swimming is an enjoyable hobby for some just like shooting is to others.

as far as i know people dont walk into schools and intentionally drown 20 innocent kids in a pool of water

 

[timschochet]

I agree that both Hollywood and video games may be contributing factors to mass shootings. But what is to be done? I support specific proposals in the case of guns because they might have a positive effect. In the case of Hiollywood and video games, I have no specific proposals to offer. Does anyone?