***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[cobalt_27]

In 2009, 77,000 people committed federal crimes by illegally applying for guns. The justice department prosecuted only 70 of them because Holder said he didn't have the resources. So we can't even enforce the bare minimum laws we have on the books going after criminals trying to get guns, but we are going to have success passing new laws that will only affect responsible owners?And is it ironic to anyone that all of this gun control stuff is coming after an incident involving a criminal murdering someone and stealing their guns? The huge majority of guns used in crimes are stolen guns. If the people committing violent crimes aren't obtaining their guns legally now, how do more laws of any sort change that?I'm on board with requiring mental health checks to buy a gun and I could even be on board with laws requiring guns to be kept in gun safes at home to prevent people from stealing them. But most of the stuff being discussed will have zero impact preventing criminals from obtaining whatever is made illegal.

The NRA and Republicans have fought every attempt to spend more money on the ATF and the Justice Department's ability to prosecute. Furthermore, the NRA and Republicans have fought against every attempt to provide the single most necessary measure to enforce the existing laws: removing the private sales background check loophole. So it seems a little ironic that you, as a conservative, would blame the federal government for not being able to enforce the existing laws. As for your comment that the proposals being discussed would have zero impact, you're simply wrong.

I'll need a link on the first and your second point is nonsensical. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people that illegally obtained their guns. Closing the private seller loophole would do virtually nothing to decrease crime or help law enforcement stop crime.Closing the the private seller loophole would have done nothing to stop the most recent tragedy. It wouldn't have stopped the Colorado movie theater shooting either. Both of them used stolen guns like 95% of crime committed by violent criminals.

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.If your paranoid and/or value shooting beer cans in your backyard with you AR and don't think critically about these issues, of course you'll parrot whatever the NRA, Rush, Hannity, and Alex Jones tell you to believe, like 5-digit and others, who just spam this thread with propaganda and have no intention of mulling over any objective analysis. But, if you actually think through this a little bit, the possibility that your rights can be protected while reducing the risk/harm to others might be illuminating.

 

[Dvorak]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

 

[Apple Jack]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

Not really, no. Because the slippery slope argument is laughably off-base considering there's, y'know, a Constitutional Amendment in place that protects the right to bear arms.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

Not really, no. Because the slippery slope argument is laughably off-base considering there's, y'know, a Constitutional Amendment in place that protects the right to bear arms.

I find it interesting that in Article 10 of Mexico's constitution of 1857 their citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn't until the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: "the right to keep" and "the right to bear". The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to Keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance with police regulation. More importantly the modification of Article 10 also introduced the so-called ...[arms]for exclusive use of the [military]..., dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.Perhaps the U.S. should take a cue from Mexico if they are interested in banning an entire class of firearms and attempt to change the constitution to do so.

 

[JHuber77]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

Not really, no. Because the slippery slope argument is laughably off-base considering there's, y'know, a Constitutional Amendment in place that protects the right to bear arms.

I find it interesting that in Article 10 of Mexico's constitution of 1857 their citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn't until the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: "the right to keep" and "the right to bear". The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to Keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance with police regulation. More importantly the modification of Article 10 also introduced the so-called ...[arms]for exclusive use of the [military]..., dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.Perhaps the U.S. should take a cue from Mexico if they are interested in banning an entire class of firearms and attempt to change the constitution to do so.

The US should not take anything from Mexico given their state of government and crime rate.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

Not really, no. Because the slippery slope argument is laughably off-base considering there's, y'know, a Constitutional Amendment in place that protects the right to bear arms.

I find it interesting that in Article 10 of Mexico's constitution of 1857 their citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn't until the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: "the right to keep" and "the right to bear". The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to Keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance with police regulation. More importantly the modification of Article 10 also introduced the so-called ...[arms]for exclusive use of the [military]..., dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.Perhaps the U.S. should take a cue from Mexico if they are interested in banning an entire class of firearms and attempt to change the constitution to do so.

The US should not take anything from Mexico given their state of government and crime rate.

I find it funny that the anti-gun crowd points to the U.S. Constitution to defend the non-existence of a slippery slope, yet when the pro-gun crowd uses the U.S. Constitution in an argument to uphold the same rights the anti-gun crowd discards it. The example in Mexico I cited is the proper way to go about trying to enforce the gun control the anti-gun crowd are after, namely banning an entire class of weapon. It took a revolution in Mexico to achieve this result (rewriting their Constitution).

 

[Apple Jack]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

Not really, no. Because the slippery slope argument is laughably off-base considering there's, y'know, a Constitutional Amendment in place that protects the right to bear arms.

I find it interesting that in Article 10 of Mexico's constitution of 1857 their citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn't until the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: "the right to keep" and "the right to bear". The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to Keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance with police regulation. More importantly the modification of Article 10 also introduced the so-called ...[arms]for exclusive use of the [military]..., dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.Perhaps the U.S. should take a cue from Mexico if they are interested in banning an entire class of firearms and attempt to change the constitution to do so.

The US should not take anything from Mexico given their state of government and crime rate.

I find it funny that the anti-gun crowd points to the U.S. Constitution to defend the non-existence of a slippery slope, yet when the pro-gun crowd uses the U.S. Constitution in an argument to uphold the same rights the anti-gun crowd discards it. The example in Mexico I cited is the proper way to go about trying to enforce the gun control the anti-gun crowd are after, namely banning an entire class of weapon. It took a revolution in Mexico to achieve this result (rewriting their Constitution).

You find it "funny" because you don't understand that there is more than one person in the "anti-gun" crowd and that they might not all think exactly the same way. Maybe they don't get what they think from the same daily talking points memo?

 

[timschochet]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

I don't see the purpose in making any semi-automatic guns illegal. You're going to have to explain it to me. I have made, I believe, reasonable arguments for removing the private sales loophole and for limiting high cap magazines. There is no reasonable argument, IMO, for making certain guns currently legal illegal. All you're doing is taking away these guns from law-abiding citizens without making society any safer. I don't get it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

Not really, no. Because the slippery slope argument is laughably off-base considering there's, y'know, a Constitutional Amendment in place that protects the right to bear arms.

I find it interesting that in Article 10 of Mexico's constitution of 1857 their citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn't until the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: "the right to keep" and "the right to bear". The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to Keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance with police regulation. More importantly the modification of Article 10 also introduced the so-called ...[arms]for exclusive use of the [military]..., dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.Perhaps the U.S. should take a cue from Mexico if they are interested in banning an entire class of firearms and attempt to change the constitution to do so.

The US should not take anything from Mexico given their state of government and crime rate.

I find it funny that the anti-gun crowd points to the U.S. Constitution to defend the non-existence of a slippery slope, yet when the pro-gun crowd uses the U.S. Constitution in an argument to uphold the same rights the anti-gun crowd discards it. The example in Mexico I cited is the proper way to go about trying to enforce the gun control the anti-gun crowd are after, namely banning an entire class of weapon. It took a revolution in Mexico to achieve this result (rewriting their Constitution).

You find it "funny" because you don't understand that there is more than one person in the "anti-gun" crowd and that they might not all think exactly the same way. Maybe they don't get what they think from the same daily talking points memo?

And yet you are the one that pointed to the Constitution stating it would defend gun owners from a slippery slope from happening.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

I don't see the purpose in making any semi-automatic guns illegal. You're going to have to explain it to me. I have made, I believe, reasonable arguments for removing the private sales loophole and for limiting high cap magazines. There is no reasonable argument, IMO, for making certain guns currently legal illegal. All you're doing is taking away these guns from law-abiding citizens without making society any safer. I don't get it.

less semi-automatic guns means less semi-automatic gun deaths?

 

[Apple Jack]

Which is precisely why, in addition to closing loopholes, removing these guns from circulation is an important step in the process. It is a process, and you're a fool if you think any one measure will reap immediate dividends.

The pro-gun-control crowd that is trying to argue there is no slippery slope and that the end goal is not to take away all the guns probably wishes you would stop posting.

Not really, no. Because the slippery slope argument is laughably off-base considering there's, y'know, a Constitutional Amendment in place that protects the right to bear arms.

I find it interesting that in Article 10 of Mexico's constitution of 1857 their citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn't until the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: "the right to keep" and "the right to bear". The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to Keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance with police regulation. More importantly the modification of Article 10 also introduced the so-called ...[arms]for exclusive use of the [military]..., dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.Perhaps the U.S. should take a cue from Mexico if they are interested in banning an entire class of firearms and attempt to change the constitution to do so.

The US should not take anything from Mexico given their state of government and crime rate.

I find it funny that the anti-gun crowd points to the U.S. Constitution to defend the non-existence of a slippery slope, yet when the pro-gun crowd uses the U.S. Constitution in an argument to uphold the same rights the anti-gun crowd discards it. The example in Mexico I cited is the proper way to go about trying to enforce the gun control the anti-gun crowd are after, namely banning an entire class of weapon. It took a revolution in Mexico to achieve this result (rewriting their Constitution).

You find it "funny" because you don't understand that there is more than one person in the "anti-gun" crowd and that they might not all think exactly the same way. Maybe they don't get what they think from the same daily talking points memo?

And yet you are the one that pointed to the Constitution stating it would defend gun owners from a slippery slope from happening.

My understanding of the slippery slope argument has always been that any law is a movement towards banning all guns. That's what's at the bottom of the slippery slope. I guess for you it means any law. We're having two different conversations.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

My understanding of the slippery slope argument has always been that any law is a movement towards banning all guns. That's what's at the bottom of the slippery slope. I guess for you it means any law. We're having two different conversations.

Not entirely accurate.http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slippery+slope1. Slippery Slope 86 up, 18 downA slippery slope is a situation in which events or actions readily progress from one to the next.Cobalt mentioned removing all "these guns" from circulation as an "important step in the process."This is the slippery slope.You stated the Constitution protects gun owners from a slippery slope. You cannot just focus on going from 270 million guns to 0. The whole reason people are calling it a slippery slope is that it happens in stages.Some have argued banning high-capacity magazines as part of this slippery slope, just another "step in the process" as cobalt would say.

 

[mad sweeney]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!

Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!

Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!

I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!

Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!

Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!

I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

BONUS! 5 person home invasion robbery

 

[Mr Two Cents]

FYIChicagoland Gun ShowDates Jan 25 - Jan 27, 2013Directions Donald E. Stephens Convention CenterCity/State Rosemont, ILHours Friday: 2pm-9pmSaturday: 10am-8pmSunday: 10am- 5pmAdmission $10 onlineDescription The Chicagoland Gun Show will be held on Friday, January 25th thru Sunday, January 27th, 2013. The Rosemont, IL Gun Show will be held at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center and is hosted by the Outdoor Sports Group of Illinois.The Chicagoland Gun Show will be co-located with the Chicago Outdoor Sports Show at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center, January 25-27, 2013.Tickets cost $10 online and will get you into both the Chicagoland Gun Show and Chicago Outdoor Sports Show.

So does this on Monday you'll be #####ing about all the people who are unfamiliar about guns who went to the Chicago gun show and bought them? Because if so, MAYBE YOU SHOULD ####### STOP PROMOTING GUN SHOWS.Just a thought.

You gun grabbers have managed to accomplish a few things with your rantings. 1. Prices are through the roof (already have what I want)2. Ammunition is difficult to find (already have thousands of rounds stocked)3. Thanks to you there are millions of new gun owners that have absolutely no idea of how a gun works or how to handle it safely. Went to a gun show in Conroe, Tx this last weekend and it was packed. I asked a lot of people what made them come to the show and a lot said they really knew nothing much about guns and were not really interested in guns BUT because of you nutbag gun grabbers they want to get something while they still can. You have let loose exactly the kind of people that you/I do not want to have guns. They are not educated in their use, have not had any training and have no clue about gun safety. I fully expect many more accidental killings aver the next few months because of your wanting to do exactly the wrong thing to America safer.

Good point you are correct. Have to weight the "more people that buy guns the less chance to pass stupid regulations" against the "people who should not be going out to buy guns because they are buying them for the wrong reason". So yeah I accept being called out as a hypocrite here, for my own ends. Nice call.

 

[urbanhack]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

Well people are pretty ####### stupid if they think congress/government is going to "ban all guns."

 

[Apple Jack]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

Yeah, probably. Might want to read the piece before commenting on it in that tone.

 

[mad sweeney]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

You told me that people who need to get a gun would have the gun they already had go off in public? Or did you tell me that a security guard would leave his gun behind in a grade school bathroom?

 

[timschochet]

Well people are pretty ####### stupid if they think congress/government is going to "ban all guns."

It's all over the place though. I was just driving down the street, and I saw these people carrying a sign that says "HELP PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT! KEEP OBAMA FROM SEIZING ALL OUR GUNS!" So many of the "pro-gun" side are such paranoid idiots- it's truly frightening.

 

[mad sweeney]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Actually those are pretty poor examples. One is a bunch of guys who started shooting at a fleeing burglar (ie not a threat to the victim anyone) in a residential neighborhood and another is a homeowner in his own home. You think that's a good thing? To open fire in a residential street at a guy running away? That's your counter?

 

[DaVinci]

Well people are pretty ####### stupid if they think congress/government is going to "ban all guns."

It's all over the place though. I was just driving down the street, and I saw these people carrying a sign that says "HELP PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT! KEEP OBAMA FROM SEIZING ALL OUR GUNS!" So many of the "pro-gun" side are such paranoid idiots- it's truly frightening.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get your guns.

 

[mad sweeney]

Well people are pretty ####### stupid if they think congress/government is going to "ban all guns."

It's all over the place though. I was just driving down the street, and I saw these people carrying a sign that says "HELP PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT! KEEP OBAMA FROM SEIZING ALL OUR GUNS!" So many of the "pro-gun" side are such paranoid idiots- it's truly frightening.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get your guns.

Well, they did such a good job taking them all away in O's first administration...

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

You told me that people who need to get a gun would have the gun they already had go off in public? Or did you tell me that a security guard would leave his gun behind in a grade school bathroom?

At least it was unloaded, I just made the statement that a lot of "gun uneducated" people were out buying guns and that stupid incidents were going to happen. 55 Million gun owners did not shoot anyone today. You guys have added a lot of people to the list, you should not be surprised that more of this stuff will happen. It is almost required and yes a lot of it will be the anti-gun peoples fault.

 

[urbanhack]

OK

 

[Mr Two Cents]

OK

What is wrong with that pic?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Why do you think I said it was a good week for the anti-gun crowd? It was a double entendre, pro-gun guys stood up for the anti-gun guy. The pro-gun guys might have broken a law, different states interpret self-defense of another differently - I don't know if the vigilantes had been charged with anything.So the anti-gun guy got his stuff back and got to rat out his "angels" to the police to further his cause (if he so chose).

 

[mad sweeney]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

You told me that people who need to get a gun would have the gun they already had go off in public? Or did you tell me that a security guard would leave his gun behind in a grade school bathroom?

At least it was unloaded, I just made the statement that a lot of "gun uneducated" people were out buying guns and that stupid incidents were going to happen. 55 Million gun owners did not shoot anyone today. You guys have added a lot of people to the list, you should not be surprised that more of this stuff will happen. It is almost required and yes a lot of it will be the anti-gun peoples fault.

That's not the statement you made, mx jr. You were trying to slough off the incident as if it were the anti-gun people's fault when it was in fact the "responsible, gun-educated" people and now you're trying to double down on that and try to blame more stuff on the people that weren't responsible for what you first tried to blame them for.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

You told me that people who need to get a gun would have the gun they already had go off in public? Or did you tell me that a security guard would leave his gun behind in a grade school bathroom?

At least it was unloaded, I just made the statement that a lot of "gun uneducated" people were out buying guns and that stupid incidents were going to happen. 55 Million gun owners did not shoot anyone today. You guys have added a lot of people to the list, you should not be surprised that more of this stuff will happen. It is almost required and yes a lot of it will be the anti-gun peoples fault.

That's not the statement you made, mx jr. You were trying to slough off the incident as if it were the anti-gun people's fault when it was in fact the "responsible, gun-educated" people and now you're trying to double down on that and try to blame more stuff on the people that weren't responsible for what you first tried to blame them for.

From what I read neither were responsible.

 

[mad sweeney]

Good week for the pro-gun forces!Two people shot at a gun safety checkpoint at Gun Appreciation Day!Added armed guard leaves gun behind in bathroom at school!I feel much safer already knowing that these trained and responsible gun owners are out there in public with their guns.

Probably more of the people that don't know #### about guns that thought they needed to get a gun before Congress banned guns. I told you this would happen, so don't be smug about it.

You told me that people who need to get a gun would have the gun they already had go off in public? Or did you tell me that a security guard would leave his gun behind in a grade school bathroom?

At least it was unloaded, I just made the statement that a lot of "gun uneducated" people were out buying guns and that stupid incidents were going to happen. 55 Million gun owners did not shoot anyone today. You guys have added a lot of people to the list, you should not be surprised that more of this stuff will happen. It is almost required and yes a lot of it will be the anti-gun peoples fault.

That's not the statement you made, mx jr. You were trying to slough off the incident as if it were the anti-gun people's fault when it was in fact the "responsible, gun-educated" people and now you're trying to double down on that and try to blame more stuff on the people that weren't responsible for what you first tried to blame them for.

From what I read neither were responsible.

At least you finally read it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You can't make this #### up.

Five injured in three separate accidents at gun shows on gun appreciation day.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

We know which one is more dangerous to our kids also and it doesn't start with NRA.

NBC/WSJ poll: NRA more popular than entertainment industryBy NBC's Mark MurrayAs Washington prepares for a political battle over the Obama White House's proposals to curb gun violence after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the National Rifle Association is more popular than the entertainment industry.Forty-one percent of adults see the NRA -- the nation's top gun lobby -- in a positive light, while 34 percent view it in a negative light.By comparison, just 24 percent have positive feelings about the entertainment industry, and 39 percent have negative ones.

 

[Kal El]

I'm of the mindset that trying to restrict ownership of assault weapons may stop some of the violence, I firmly believe that if a person wants to commit a crime with a gun, they'll do it, and regulating the law-abiding citizens really is pretty counterproductive. However, I'd like to see a course on safety be taught to as many people as possible, just to make sure that they don't do anything foolish by accident.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

500 gun supporters protest in Nashville, decry restrictionsMore than 500 people took to the War Memorial Plaza near the Capitol on Saturday to protest proposed gun legislation and to rally for expanded gun rights.The event, organized by a group called Guns Across America, heard speakers decry what they saw as “tyranny” and an infringement of Second Amendment rights by President Barack Obama in trying to strengthen gun regulations and enact bans on military-style weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Speakers also complained that Tennessee legislators — Republicans in particular — have not done enough to expand gun rights in Tennessee.

 

[Henry Ford]

500 gun supporters protest in Nashville, decry restrictionsMore than 500 people took to the War Memorial Plaza near the Capitol on Saturday to protest proposed gun legislation and to rally for expanded gun rights.The event, organized by a group called Guns Across America, heard speakers decry what they saw as “tyranny” and an infringement of Second Amendment rights by President Barack Obama in trying to strengthen gun regulations and enact bans on military-style weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Speakers also complained that Tennessee legislators — Republicans in particular — have not done enough to expand gun rights in Tennessee.

"Slightly more than one of every 500,000 people in the country protested" puts them slightly behind the number of people who protested the new parking zones in my neighborhood two years ago.

 

[Kal El]

It should also be mentioned, as I'd be willing to bet it has already, that a firearm is simply a tool to be used. The intention is in the hands of the wielder.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

500 gun supporters protest in Nashville, decry restrictionsMore than 500 people took to the War Memorial Plaza near the Capitol on Saturday to protest proposed gun legislation and to rally for expanded gun rights.The event, organized by a group called Guns Across America, heard speakers decry what they saw as “tyranny” and an infringement of Second Amendment rights by President Barack Obama in trying to strengthen gun regulations and enact bans on military-style weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Speakers also complained that Tennessee legislators — Republicans in particular — have not done enough to expand gun rights in Tennessee.

"Slightly more than one of every 500,000 people in the country protested" puts them slightly behind the number of people who protested the new parking zones in my neighborhood two years ago.

So who won the parking zone fight?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

500 gun supporters protest in Nashville, decry restrictionsMore than 500 people took to the War Memorial Plaza near the Capitol on Saturday to protest proposed gun legislation and to rally for expanded gun rights.The event, organized by a group called Guns Across America, heard speakers decry what they saw as “tyranny” and an infringement of Second Amendment rights by President Barack Obama in trying to strengthen gun regulations and enact bans on military-style weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Speakers also complained that Tennessee legislators — Republicans in particular — have not done enough to expand gun rights in Tennessee.

"Slightly more than one of every 500,000 people in the country protested" puts them slightly behind the number of people who protested the new parking zones in my neighborhood two years ago.

Since you are only concerned about numbers, is this better for you.Gun Appreciation day

 

[Mr Two Cents]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBBYn-7CEAAHtGp.jpg:large

 

[5 digit know nothing]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBBYn-7CEAAHtGp.jpg:large

I think we've found the problem

 

[Cookiemonster]

OK. Just finished reading the last 3.5 days worth of posts. Fill me in if I missed anything...Slingblade was bannedThe end.

 

[mad sweeney]

500 gun supporters protest in Nashville, decry restrictionsMore than 500 people took to the War Memorial Plaza near the Capitol on Saturday to protest proposed gun legislation and to rally for expanded gun rights.The event, organized by a group called Guns Across America, heard speakers decry what they saw as “tyranny” and an infringement of Second Amendment rights by President Barack Obama in trying to strengthen gun regulations and enact bans on military-style weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Speakers also complained that Tennessee legislators — Republicans in particular — have not done enough to expand gun rights in Tennessee.

"Slightly more than one of every 500,000 people in the country protested" puts them slightly behind the number of people who protested the new parking zones in my neighborhood two years ago.

Since you are only concerned about numbers, is this better for you.Gun Appreciation day

Hmmm, doesn't seem to mention all the people that actually got shot at these rallies. Accidentally of course.

 

[mad sweeney]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBBYn-7CEAAHtGp.jpg:large

So other than the fact that only half of them were registered Dems (the VT may have been, but if he was then they would've surely mentioned it) what's the point?eta: and where anywhere did they show that those people were progressive or liberal Dems? Maybe they were moderate Dems or just DINOs. Basically, that little meme is more full of bs than it is fact or points.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well people are pretty ####### stupid if they think congress/government is going to "ban all guns."

It's all over the place though. I was just driving down the street, and I saw these people carrying a sign that says "HELP PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT! KEEP OBAMA FROM SEIZING ALL OUR GUNS!" So many of the "pro-gun" side are such paranoid idiots- it's truly frightening.

Aren't you the guy who thinks Iran is going to nuke us?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Working AR-15 from 3D Printer

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If your paranoid and/or value shooting beer cans in your backyard with you AR and don't think critically about these issues, of course you'll parrot whatever the NRA, Rush, Hannity, and Alex Jones tell you to believe, like 5-digit and others, who just spam this thread with propaganda and have no intention of mulling over any objective analysis. But, if you actually think through this a little bit, the possibility that your rights can be protected while reducing the risk/harm to others might be illuminating.

This just points to how ignorant and arrogant you are. Previously in this thread I posted a pretty simple analysis of intentional homicide rate by country against gun ownership rates. Then followed it up with an article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that showed similar results.Just because the evidence laid out in front of you strongly disagrees with your views, you do not get to write it off as "propaganda".

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (P. 654)
Propaganda My ###

 

[tom22406]

OK. Just finished reading the last 3.5 days worth of posts. Fill me in if I missed anything...Slingblade was bannedThe end.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If your paranoid and/or value shooting beer cans in your backyard with you AR and don't think critically about these issues, of course you'll parrot whatever the NRA, Rush, Hannity, and Alex Jones tell you to believe, like 5-digit and others, who just spam this thread with propaganda and have no intention of mulling over any objective analysis. But, if you actually think through this a little bit, the possibility that your rights can be protected while reducing the risk/harm to others might be illuminating.

This just points to how ignorant and arrogant you are. Previously in this thread I posted a pretty simple analysis of intentional homicide rate by country against gun ownership rates. Then followed it up with an article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that showed similar results.Just because the evidence laid out in front of you strongly disagrees with your views, you do not get to write it off as "propaganda".

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (P. 654)
Propaganda My ###

You posted summary tables that showed former Eastern Bloc nations had extremely high murder rates but didn't wonder if maybe there was something else driving those results (such as an oppressive regime which didn't provide much legal recourse resulting in a strong black market and mafia presence). You then followed it up an analysis which linked low gun ownership rates to high rates of violent crime. I'm not sure if you just missed the fact that you were posting something different or knew and were hoping that nobody else would.But now, pages later, you just treat it as a fait accompli since nobody took the time to point out, again, how you misunderstand and misuse statistics. Basically, the things which you put up don't prove which you claim them to so should never be treated as such, whether someone takes the time to explicitly point out how you ####ed up again or not.

So much fail with this I don't even know where to begin.And all of this from the guy that started the whole "MORE GUNS = MORE MURDERS"

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Fuel for the fire.

E&WROL (“excessive and without rule of law”): not a contradiction, but what’s likely comingby Glen Tate on January 20, 2013How many times do things turn out exactly like you think they will? For me, not often. Often something that I think will happen partially happens, while something else I didn’t foresee partially happens too. Reality is a blend of what I foresee and what I didn’t see coming. A blend.I think the collapse will be a blend of EROL (“excessive rule of law”) and WROL (“without rule of law”). I call it “E&WROL.”Some in the prepping community talk about getting ready for EROL. They (correctly) are worried about an oppressive government cracking down after a collapse.Many in the prepping community are getting ready for WROL. You know, looting and gangs running wild. This is a very likely scenario.How can we simultaneously have two things that contradict each other: too much rule of law and total lawlessness?It happens all the time, actually. A friend of mine has seen it. He is a special operations soldier. He’s seen E&WROL in Baghdad and Kabul.Let’s look at what E&WROL would look like in America. It starts with things like the recently passed gun laws in New York state, which make it a felony to possess most of the guns people have. Some citizens will shoot back when the police try to take their guns. As one New York mayor put it, there will be some “Waco-style standoffs.” Expect lots of bloody firefights. They will be on the news every night.Assume that during these firefights some innocent civilians get killed, as they will. What if some people start targeting the police as retribution? This has already happened: Oklahoma City was retribution for Waco. My spec ops friend has seen this retribution happen. Houses burned. Families of police officers killed. Horrific things.The police won’t take it lying down. They will react, and react hard. (You know what happens when someone kills a cop; the killer is rarely taken alive.) There will be some bad police who want to abuse people. But, in my experience, the vast majority of police aren’t like that. Instead, when confronted with retributionists trying to kill them and their families, the police will go into survival mode – like any human beings would. They will band together. They will “take care of business.” You won’t want to have a “Don’t Tread on Me” sticker on your vehicle during a traffic stop. There will be police road blocks and warrantless vehicle searches. This is EROL.While EROL is going on, WROL will explode. Why? Because the criminals know that the police are hunkered down behind barricades and trying to find retributionists. This leaves the streets free for criminals to steal, rape, burn, and kill. And they will. Big time.So I foresee simultaneous EROL and WROL. This happens all over the world. In fact, it’s going on right now, as you read this, in some part of the world.What can you do?Lay low. Be strictly defensive. Expect both criminals and the police to be potential problems for you, and avoid both. Don’t go looking for fights.Stay the hell away from everyone, except your family and the people you trust. For the first few days or maybe weeks of the collapse, while E&WROL is unfolding, be invisible. Don’t show off your AR-15 to the neighbor lady. Don’t give the police a reason to suspect you. Repel the criminals but don’t go hunting for them. Be strictly defensive.There will be a time for you to band together with like-minded people who want to fix things – but don’t assume that will happen on day one. You have to live past the first few days or weeks of the collapse before you can go on to eventually fix things. Live to fight another day.The best way to live through the initial period is to not assume things will be exactly like you’ve planned. If you’ve spent hours thinking about how you would go after the police, don’t do it. If you’ve spent hours thinking about how you’ll hunt down criminals, don’t do it.Instead, take things as they come with your primary goal being your survival. Don’t get locked into one scenario. Adapt. Survive.