***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Glass Joe]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. The problem as I see it, is there any way to legislate gun control without infringing on the responsible gun owners rights. I'm not sure there is any way to do it. If all gun owners were responsible there wouldn't be any debate.

Step 1: enforce existing laws

Maybe part of the problem is that the NRA doesn't want existing gun laws enforced?

How do you gun nuts defend the NRA's attempts to curtail enforcement of existing gun laws?

 

[mad sweeney]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

It's not a deterrent to criminals so much as offering an opportunity to victims.

Know what offers more opportunity to victims? The ability to also be armed and defend themselves.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

How many of these were home defense? And how many were using guns/items that have been contested lately?

 

[[icon]]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

It's not a deterrent to criminals so much as offering an opportunity to victims.

Know what offers more opportunity to victims? The ability to also be armed and defend themselves.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

How many of these were home defense? And how many were using guns/items that have been contested lately?

75.91894% were home defense

57.2991% were using guns that have been contested lately

/chaka

 

[mad sweeney]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

It's not a deterrent to criminals so much as offering an opportunity to victims.

Know what offers more opportunity to victims? The ability to also be armed and defend themselves.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

How many of these were home defense? And how many were using guns/items that have been contested lately?

75.91894% were home defense57.2991% were using guns that have been contested lately

/chaka

Almost 60% were not shotgun/handguns?

 

[Chaka]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

It's not a deterrent to criminals so much as offering an opportunity to victims.

Know what offers more opportunity to victims? The ability to also be armed and defend themselves.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

How many of these were home defense? And how many were using guns/items that have been contested lately?

75.91894% were home defense

57.2991% were using guns that have been contested lately

/chaka

I am not trying to antagonize you [icon] but the conclusions of the Cleck and Gertz research paper you are so fond of is a hotly contested subject. I am in the process of reading it, you should do the same.

 

[Chaka]

First off the paper is from a telephone survey of individuals who by definition of their actions have no choice but to say they thought their lives were in danger. Unfortunately there is no way of verifying that and I don't trust in the nature of human understanding and memory enough to simply take them at face value. You wouldn't either if you weren't so intractably supportive of your position.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

It's not a deterrent to criminals so much as offering an opportunity to victims.

Know what offers more opportunity to victims? The ability to also be armed and defend themselves.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

How many of these were home defense? And how many were using guns/items that have been contested lately?

75.91894% were home defense

57.2991% were using guns that have been contested lately

/chaka

I am not trying to antagonize you [icon] but the conclusions of the Cleck and Gertz research paper you are so fond of is a hotly contested subject. I am in the process of reading it, you should do the same.

Yeah, that Kleck and Gertz paper has been thoroughly trashed the past 18 years. This analysis of the study by Duke, Georgetown, and Harvard Prof's layeth the smacketh downeth.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:

1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?

2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

 

[mad sweeney]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Recent poll results regarding the situation that just happened in Boston.

The city of Boston was on lockdown and residents were asked to stay in their homes on Friday morning as authorities searched for one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon Bombings -- a suspect police considered armed and dangerous. If you were in that situation -- locked in your home while a manhunt for a murderer was being conducted nearby -- would you rather have a gun in your house, or not?

69% Yes, I would (Gun-owner HH: 88%, Non-gun HH: 50%)

28% No, I wouldn't (Gun-owner HH: 11%, Non-gun HH: 46%)

3% Don't know

Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research ®
N= 1,009 registered voters (675 landline, 334 cell phone)
Interviews Conducted:
April 20-22, 2013

 

[5 digit know nothing]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

 

[Novice2]

Recent poll results regarding the situation that just happened in Boston. The city of Boston was on lockdown and residents were asked to stay in their homes on Friday morning as authorities searched for one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon Bombings -- a suspect police considered armed and dangerous. If you were in that situation -- locked in your home while a manhunt for a murderer was being conducted nearby -- would you rather have a gun in your house, or not? 69% Yes, I would (Gun-owner HH: 88%, Non-gun HH: 50%)28% No, I wouldn't (Gun-owner HH: 11%, Non-gun HH: 46%)3% Don't know Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research ®N= 1,009 registered voters (675 landline, 334 cell phone)Interviews Conducted:April 20-22, 2013

I'd rather not the government resort to martial law but that's just me.

 

[timschochet]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This really isn't a surprise.

1. The public wasn't generally aware that background checks aren't universal.

2. The public would like background checks to be universal, in overwhelming numbers, but it's not considered a critical issue.

3. I am betting that the public is unaware that the gun control bill that failed was mainly devoted to the background check question. I think most people believe that it was more of an omnibus bill and banned certain weapons.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This really isn't a surprise.

1. The public wasn't generally aware that background checks aren't universal.

2. The public would like background checks to be universal, in overwhelming numbers, but it's not considered a critical issue.

3. I am betting that the public is unaware that the gun control bill that failed was mainly devoted to the background check question. I think most people believe that it was more of an omnibus bill and banned certain weapons.

Would like to know what you're basing this claim on... Link?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.

Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.

Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)

As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This really isn't a surprise.

1. The public wasn't generally aware that background checks aren't universal.

2. The public would like background checks to be universal, in overwhelming numbers, but it's not considered a critical issue.

3. I am betting that the public is unaware that the gun control bill that failed was mainly devoted to the background check question. I think most people believe that it was more of an omnibus bill and banned certain weapons.

Would like to know what you're basing this claim on... Link?

Typical TimLogic©

My post shows they claimed to "strongly support" it prior to the vote, and then when it failed more than half didn't give two ####s, so according to TimLogic© they must not have known what was in the bill.

 

[mad sweeney]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This really isn't a surprise.

1. The public wasn't generally aware that background checks aren't universal.

2. The public would like background checks to be universal, in overwhelming numbers, but it's not considered a critical issue.

3. I am betting that the public is unaware that the gun control bill that failed was mainly devoted to the background check question. I think most people believe that it was more of an omnibus bill and banned certain weapons.

Would like to know what you're basing this claim on... Link?

You've made some a claim or two that I'd like to know where they came from. It's easy, apparently. yet you can't do it.

 

[timschochet]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This really isn't a surprise.

1. The public wasn't generally aware that background checks aren't universal.

2. The public would like background checks to be universal, in overwhelming numbers, but it's not considered a critical issue.

3. I am betting that the public is unaware that the gun control bill that failed was mainly devoted to the background check question. I think most people believe that it was more of an omnibus bill and banned certain weapons.

Would like to know what you're basing this claim on... Link?

Typical TimLogic©

My post shows they claimed to "strongly support" it prior to the vote, and then when it failed more than half didn't give two ####s, so according to TimLogic© they must not have known what was in the bill.

That is my assumption, yes.

YOUR assumption, that the public is not actually in favor of universal background checks, is far more absurd.

 

[mad sweeney]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

Go away clown. You're in over your head, you don't understand what you're replying to (big surprise) and you still owe answers from months ago. Go away until you grow a pair.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. The problem as I see it, is there any way to legislate gun control without infringing on the responsible gun owners rights. I'm not sure there is any way to do it.If all gun owners were responsible there wouldn't be any debate.

Step 1: enforce existing laws

Maybe part of the problem is that the NRA doesn't want existing gun laws enforced?

How do you gun nuts defend the NRA's attempts to curtail enforcement of existing gun laws?

Show us something more than a loosely drawn conclusion that supports your statement here please.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

Go away clown. You're in over your head, you don't understand what you're replying to (big surprise) and you still owe answers from months ago. Go away until you grow a pair.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This really isn't a surprise.

1. The public wasn't generally aware that background checks aren't universal.

2. The public would like background checks to be universal, in overwhelming numbers, but it's not considered a critical issue.

3. I am betting that the public is unaware that the gun control bill that failed was mainly devoted to the background check question. I think most people believe that it was more of an omnibus bill and banned certain weapons.

Would like to know what you're basing this claim on... Link?

Typical TimLogic©

My post shows they claimed to "strongly support" it prior to the vote, and then when it failed more than half didn't give two ####s, so according to TimLogic© they must not have known what was in the bill.

That is my assumption, yes.

YOUR assumption, that the public is not actually in favor of universal background checks, is far more absurd.

If it is only an assumption of yours, why do you state it as fact?

 

[mad sweeney]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. The problem as I see it, is there any way to legislate gun control without infringing on the responsible gun owners rights. I'm not sure there is any way to do it.If all gun owners were responsible there wouldn't be any debate.

Step 1: enforce existing laws

Maybe part of the problem is that the NRA doesn't want existing gun laws enforced?

How do you gun nuts defend the NRA's attempts to curtail enforcement of existing gun laws?

Show us something more than a loosely drawn conclusion that supports your statement here please.

Why are you asking others to back up their words?! Man up before you ask others to.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

Go away clown. You're in over your head, you don't understand what you're replying to (big surprise) and you still owe answers from months ago. Go away until you grow a pair.

Exactly.. You have no point... Just trolling as usual..

 

[timschochet]

That didn't take long...

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate's action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who "strongly approved" the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.Looking further at the partisan breakdown, a little more than two-thirds of Democrats are disappointed or angry, and 22% are happy or relieved.Only four Democrats voted against the amendment–all of whom are from states with large swaths of conservative voters. The four lawmakers included Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. (Senate Majority Harry Reid voted "no" for procedural reasons that would allow him to bring up the bill again in the future.)As for Republicans, the poll shows a slight majority–51%–say they are very happy or relieved, while just over one-third say they are disappointed or angry. GOP members of the Senate largely voted against the measure, with the exception of four senators: Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This really isn't a surprise.

1. The public wasn't generally aware that background checks aren't universal.

2. The public would like background checks to be universal, in overwhelming numbers, but it's not considered a critical issue.

3. I am betting that the public is unaware that the gun control bill that failed was mainly devoted to the background check question. I think most people believe that it was more of an omnibus bill and banned certain weapons.

Would like to know what you're basing this claim on... Link?

Typical TimLogic©

My post shows they claimed to "strongly support" it prior to the vote, and then when it failed more than half didn't give two ####s, so according to TimLogic© they must not have known what was in the bill.

That is my assumption, yes.

YOUR assumption, that the public is not actually in favor of universal background checks, is far more absurd.

If it is only an assumption of yours, why do you state it as fact?

Please refer to my sig.

 

[mad sweeney]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

Go away clown. You're in over your head, you don't understand what you're replying to (big surprise) and you still owe answers from months ago. Go away until you grow a pair.

Exactly.. You have no point... Just trolling as usual..

Sure thing iToughguy. Make a fool of yourself then try to brush it off as someone else's problem. You're less than a troll. You're a spineless loudmouth whogoes to great lengths to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Spineless and without a shred of intellectual integrity. Actually lacking in most intellectual categories. I have a point. You don't get it for the reasons above. Now do the "easy" thing or go away.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

Go away clown. You're in over your head, you don't understand what you're replying to (big surprise) and you still owe answers from months ago. Go away until you grow a pair.

Exactly.. You have no point... Just trolling as usual..

Sure thing iToughguy. Make a fool of yourself then try to brush it off as someone else's problem. You're less than a troll. You're a spineless loudmouth whogoes to great lengths to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Spineless and without a shred of intellectual integrity. Actually lacking in most intellectual categories. I have a point. You don't get it for the reasons above. Now do the "easy" thing or go away.

You never explain yourself.. You never have meaningful discussions.. Your intent here is to troll.. Anyone disagrees with you, or questions your position, you react just like this.. Name calling, posturing, etc... The only one here acting like a "toughguy" is you.. You're an @$$

 

[mad sweeney]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

Go away clown. You're in over your head, you don't understand what you're replying to (big surprise) and you still owe answers from months ago. Go away until you grow a pair.

Exactly.. You have no point... Just trolling as usual..

Sure thing iToughguy. Make a fool of yourself then try to brush it off as someone else's problem. You're less than a troll. You're a spineless loudmouth whogoes to great lengths to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Spineless and without a shred of intellectual integrity. Actually lacking in most intellectual categories. I have a point. You don't get it for the reasons above. Now do the "easy" thing or go away.

You never explain yourself.. You never have meaningful discussions.. Your intent here is to troll.. Anyone disagrees with you, or questions your position, you react just like this.. Name calling, posturing, etc... The only one here acting like a "toughguy" is you.. You're an ###

Blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah. Why would I react to anyone else as if they were the ones who talked a bunch of trash and then never own up to being wrong about it?! That's only you, guy. Take it somewhere where you jellyfish can hang out and not back yourselves up.

"You're a bad guy who calls people names! Let me show you how much better I am than you by... calling you a name (while also spending more and more efforts to not do the easy thing that you said if I do you'd never post in this thread again)." I gave you my silence on a silver platter, homie. All you had to do was what you called, repeatedly, easy. You didn't and now spend all your time calling me a troll and lambasting me. All you had to do was back up what your mouth was typing but you can't, and can't even admit you were wrong. If I'm a troll, what does that make you? Give you a hint: I have to scrape some of it off the bottom of my shoe.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

2 questions for the anti-gun crowd:1) How many DGU's do you think happen per year in the U.S.?2) How many DGU's do you need to occur for you to end your anti-gun crusade?

Question for the pro-gun crowd:1) How many laws do you think criminals obey?2) If we had more or less laws, would criminals obey more or less of them?

1) No one disobeys all of the laws.. It's likely no one obeys ALL of the laws.. It's obvious that "Criminals" disregard some laws.. Pretty stupid question..

2) If we have move laws, I'd think we have more "criminals". So I'd say on a percentage basis, less laws would be obeyed.

Whats your point?

Go away clown. You're in over your head, you don't understand what you're replying to (big surprise) and you still owe answers from months ago. Go away until you grow a pair.

Exactly.. You have no point... Just trolling as usual..

Sure thing iToughguy. Make a fool of yourself then try to brush it off as someone else's problem. You're less than a troll. You're a spineless loudmouth whogoes to great lengths to avoid having to admit you were wrong. Spineless and without a shred of intellectual integrity. Actually lacking in most intellectual categories. I have a point. You don't get it for the reasons above. Now do the "easy" thing or go away.

You never explain yourself.. You never have meaningful discussions.. Your intent here is to troll.. Anyone disagrees with you, or questions your position, you react just like this.. Name calling, posturing, etc... The only one here acting like a "toughguy" is you.. You're an ###

Blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah. Why would I react to anyone else as if they were the ones who talked a bunch of trash and then never own up to being wrong about it?! That's only you, guy. Take it somewhere where you jellyfish can hang out and not back yourselves up.

"You're a bad guy who calls people names! Let me show you how much better I am than you by... calling you a name (while also spending more and more efforts to not do the easy thing that you said if I do you'd never post in this thread again)." I gave you my silence on a silver platter, homie. All you had to do was what you called, repeatedly, easy. You didn't and now spend all your time calling me a troll and lambasting me. All you had to do was back up what your mouth was typing but you can't, and can't even admit you were wrong. If I'm a troll, what does that make you? Give you a hint: I have to scrape some of it off the bottom of my shoe.

:Sweeney's daily drama:

 

[Chaka]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. The problem as I see it, is there any way to legislate gun control without infringing on the responsible gun owners rights. I'm not sure there is any way to do it.If all gun owners were responsible there wouldn't be any debate.

Step 1: enforce existing laws

Maybe part of the problem is that the NRA doesn't want existing gun laws enforced?

How do you gun nuts defend the NRA's attempts to curtail enforcement of existing gun laws?

Show us something more than a loosely drawn conclusion that supports your statement here please.

If you can get away from your slapfight with sweeney and do just a little sleuthing you would easily be able to identify multiple examples of the NRA influencing gun legislation particularly in the arena of castrating the ATF. If you haven't identified your own by then, or chosen to ignore the ones you found, I will post some links in the AM.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Perhaps you should educate yourself with with the history of ATF abuses before you start pointing your finger at the big bad NRA which has done more to protect people's rights than you ever will:

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/26053.pdf
http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html
http://www.gundigest.com/gun-rights/gunrights-090909-atf-exposed

http://offgridsurvival.com/atfillegallyaskingforgunstorecustomerrecords/

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/atf-seeks-massive-database-personal-info-assets-relatives-associates

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. The problem as I see it, is there any way to legislate gun control without infringing on the responsible gun owners rights. I'm not sure there is any way to do it.If all gun owners were responsible there wouldn't be any debate.

Step 1: enforce existing laws

Maybe part of the problem is that the NRA doesn't want existing gun laws enforced?

How do you gun nuts defend the NRA's attempts to curtail enforcement of existing gun laws?

Show us something more than a loosely drawn conclusion that supports your statement here please.

If you can get away from your slapfight with sweeney and do just a little sleuthing you would easily be able to identify multiple examples of the NRA influencing gun legislation particularly in the arena of castrating the ATF. If you haven't identified your own by then, or chosen to ignore the ones you found, I will post some links in the AM.

Looks like you're going to have to direct me to something here. To this point it looks like a common deceptive statement by the Anti-gun crowd. I see plenty of NRA sticking up for gun owner rights, and only loosely drawn conclusions suggesting they are intent on stopping the ATF from properly enforcing existing laws..

If you could, please show me one instance where the NRA directly inhibited an attempt by the ATF to properly enforce the law.

 

[[icon]]

FUN FACTS TO CONSIDER:
Bullet size comparison between common rounds:
(Measured in grain weight)

12ga Rifle Slug: 385-700 grain
44 Magnum Handgun: 200-300 grain
.45 Handgun: 185 to 230 grain
9mm Handgun: 115 to 142 grain (generally considered the smallest effective "self defense" round)
.380 Handgun: 80-100 grain (generally considered a women's "purse pistol" round)
.223 AR-15: 50 to 55 grain
.22LR Standard 22 Rifle: 40 grain (considered worthless "plinking/vamint" ammo

Just some food for thought for those envisioning the .223 round as some devastating beast. It is about half the diameter and almost a third of the mass of the smallest "effective self defense" round.

 

[ATC1]

FUN FACTS TO CONSIDER:

Bullet size comparison between common rounds:

(Measured in grain weight)

12ga Rifle Slug: 385-700 grain

44 Magnum Handgun: 200-300 grain

.45 Handgun: 185 to 230 grain

9mm Handgun: 115 to 142 grain (generally considered the smallest effective "self defense" round)

.380 Handgun: 80-100 grain (generally considered a women's "purse pistol" round)

.223 AR-15: 50 to 55 grain

.22LR Standard 22 Rifle: 40 grain (considered worthless "plinking/vamint" ammo

Just some food for thought for those envisioning the .223 round as some devastating beast. It is about half the diameter and almost a third of the mass of the smallest "effective self defense" round.

But the .223 round is pointier!!

Might as well be speaking in Swahili.

 

[Chaka]

FUN FACTS TO CONSIDER:

Bullet size comparison between common rounds:

(Measured in grain weight)

12ga Rifle Slug: 385-700 grain

44 Magnum Handgun: 200-300 grain

.45 Handgun: 185 to 230 grain

9mm Handgun: 115 to 142 grain (generally considered the smallest effective "self defense" round)

.380 Handgun: 80-100 grain (generally considered a women's "purse pistol" round)

.223 AR-15: 50 to 55 grain

.22LR Standard 22 Rifle: 40 grain (considered worthless "plinking/vamint" ammo

Just some food for thought for those envisioning the .223 round as some devastating beast. It is about half the diameter and almost a third of the mass of the smallest "effective self defense" round.

F=MA

 

[Chaka]

Looks like you're going to have to direct me to something here. To this point it looks like a common deceptive statement by the Anti-gun crowd. I see plenty of NRA sticking up for gun owner rights, and only loosely drawn conclusions suggesting they are intent on stopping the ATF from properly enforcing existing laws..

If you could, please show me one instance where the NRA directly inhibited an attempt by the ATF to properly enforce the law.

Of course that is all you found and naturally you asked your question in a way to make it impossible to demonstrate. The NRA cannot act directly on the ATF, like any group they act on legislators through the lobbying process.

I'll dig up links for you to ignore after I take care of some work.

 

[Chaka]

Perhaps you should educate yourself with with the history of ATF abuses before you start pointing your finger at the big bad NRA which has done more to protect people's rights than you ever will:

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/26053.pdf

http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html

http://www.gundigest.com/gun-rights/gunrights-090909-atf-exposed

http://offgridsurvival.com/atfillegallyaskingforgunstorecustomerrecords/

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/atf-seeks-massive-database-personal-info-assets-relatives-associates

Tell me what your first response would be to links like that?

Hint: You would attack the source.

Now, even if I choose not to dispute those links, and I don't know if I have the time or energy to bother, weigh those abuses against the amount of gun violence in this country and tell me what you think.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Perhaps you should educate yourself with with the history of ATF abuses before you start pointing your finger at the big bad NRA which has done more to protect people's rights than you ever will:

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/26053.pdf

http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html

http://www.gundigest.com/gun-rights/gunrights-090909-atf-exposed

http://offgridsurvival.com/atfillegallyaskingforgunstorecustomerrecords/

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/atf-seeks-massive-database-personal-info-assets-relatives-associates

Tell me what your first response would be to links like that?

Hint: You would attack the source.

Now, even if I choose not to dispute those links, and I don't know if I have the time or energy to bother, weigh those abuses against the amount of gun violence in this country and tell me what you think.

The fact that you didn't even click on the first link shows me you are just fishing here. Stop wasting our time.

 

[Chaka]

Perhaps you should educate yourself with with the history of ATF abuses before you start pointing your finger at the big bad NRA which has done more to protect people's rights than you ever will:

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/26053.pdf

http://www.atfabuse.com/enter.html

http://www.gundigest.com/gun-rights/gunrights-090909-atf-exposed

http://offgridsurvival.com/atfillegallyaskingforgunstorecustomerrecords/

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/atf-seeks-massive-database-personal-info-assets-relatives-associates

Tell me what your first response would be to links like that?

Hint: You would attack the source.

Now, even if I choose not to dispute those links, and I don't know if I have the time or energy to bother, weigh those abuses against the amount of gun violence in this country and tell me what you think.

The fact that you didn't even click on the first link shows me you are just fishing here. Stop wasting our time.

I sincerely doubt you read that link yourself. If you had you would see that it is, in fact, a demonstration of transparency and accountability. FFL holders are not held to nearly the same level of transparency or accountability btw.

I am only 12 or so pages into the report but so far the horrible abuse you are talking about was questioning 200 or so people at a gun show, taking guns from 50 and giving them back to most of them. Some thought the ATF stepped over the line by implying that people could suffer greater punishment than the ATF had authority to impose (a tactic used daily in all manner of law enforcement but I don't imagine you mind when it relates to people who you don't approve) and they were investigated.

 

[ATC1]

News about my state.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/gun_control_concealed_carry_bi.html

Second Amendment rights advocates in Louisiana claimed another victory Wednesday, when the lower house of the Legislature approved a bill to allow for lifetime concealed-carry permits.

House Bill 265, which passed with a vote of 65-19, was the first lawmaking foray by Central Republican Barry Ivey, who beat Metro Councilman Scott Wilson in a special election in early March.

Currently, concealed-carry permits cost $125 and last for five years. Ivey's bill would allow Louisianans to choose between the five-year permit or one that would last for life. The lifetime permit would cost $500 and would require the permit holder to provide proof of renewed educational training every five years.

The bill received little real debate on the House floor. Because it was Ivey's first bill, most lawmakers -- hewing to long-standing legislative tradition -- spent the majority of the debate period "hazing" the new representative.

A small cohort of lawmakers tried to keep things serious, expressing concern that the bill would allow felons to have lifetime concealed-carry permits. But Ivey said that was a misplaced fear because the Louisiana State Police, which issues permits, is immediately alerted if a permit holder is involved in a crime.

Under current law, if a holder is convicted of a felony, their permit is immediately revoked. Permit holders are also required to notify police of a criminal offense within 15 days and of an address change within 30 days; if they fail to do this, their permit is revoked.

Concealed-carry permits numbers have skyrocketed in recent months. Since President Barack Obama announced plans for new federal regulations in the wake of the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, applications have increased by 211 percent, according to the State Police.

Due to the increase in applications, wait times have also increased for both new permits and renewals, from around 65 days to 110 days. Ivey, during his presentation on the House floor Wednesday, said the purpose of the lifetime permit is to cut down on paperwork by offering an alternative to the five-year renewal, which he called "a hassle."

The vote was largely split along party lines. All 19 lawmakers who voted against the bill were Democrats, while two independents and 17 Democrats, including House Minority Leader John Bel Edwards of Amite and Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger of New Orleans, voted for the bill.

The bill now heads to the Senate for further debate.

 

[[icon]]

News about my state.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/gun_control_concealed_carry_bi.html

Second Amendment rights advocates in Louisiana claimed another victory Wednesday, when the lower house of the Legislature approved a bill to allow for lifetime concealed-carry permits.

House Bill 265, which passed with a vote of 65-19, was the first lawmaking foray by Central Republican Barry Ivey, who beat Metro Councilman Scott Wilson in a special election in early March.

Currently, concealed-carry permits cost $125 and last for five years. Ivey's bill would allow Louisianans to choose between the five-year permit or one that would last for life. The lifetime permit would cost $500 and would require the permit holder to provide proof of renewed educational training every five years.

The bill received little real debate on the House floor. Because it was Ivey's first bill, most lawmakers -- hewing to long-standing legislative tradition -- spent the majority of the debate period "hazing" the new representative.

A small cohort of lawmakers tried to keep things serious, expressing concern that the bill would allow felons to have lifetime concealed-carry permits. But Ivey said that was a misplaced fear because the Louisiana State Police, which issues permits, is immediately alerted if a permit holder is involved in a crime.

Under current law, if a holder is convicted of a felony, their permit is immediately revoked. Permit holders are also required to notify police of a criminal offense within 15 days and of an address change within 30 days; if they fail to do this, their permit is revoked.

Concealed-carry permits numbers have skyrocketed in recent months. Since President Barack Obama announced plans for new federal regulations in the wake of the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, applications have increased by 211 percent, according to the State Police.

Due to the increase in applications, wait times have also increased for both new permits and renewals, from around 65 days to 110 days. Ivey, during his presentation on the House floor Wednesday, said the purpose of the lifetime permit is to cut down on paperwork by offering an alternative to the five-year renewal, which he called "a hassle."

The vote was largely split along party lines. All 19 lawmakers who voted against the bill were Democrats, while two independents and 17 Democrats, including House Minority Leader John Bel Edwards of Amite and Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger of New Orleans, voted for the bill.

The bill now heads to the Senate for further debate.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Chaka, remember this is who you're dealing with. Doomsday Preppers indeed.

3 Cases of MRE's. 6 Blankets. 30 Gallons of water. Radio. Flashlights. Lots of batteries. Lighters. Ammo. Rolls of plastic. Medic Trauma Bag. Duct Tape. $500 in cash. some other stuff.... but yeah. I've got a "Trunk" in the corner of a storage room.

[SIZE=10.5pt]This post sums up the differences between the anti-gun crowd and the pro-gun crowd succinctly. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Anti-gun crowd believes in big government. A large government that will always be there to protect them in times of crisis. No matter how many L.A. Riots, Hurricanes, Superstorms, Christopher Dorners, nor terrorists running through neighborhoods with homemade IED's, car jackings and hostage takings, the anti-gun crowd has a blind faith loyalty to the government and local agencies to always be there to [/SIZE]protect them in a timely fashion since they do not see any of those examples as threats to them since they personally have never been victims in the past.

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The pro-gun crowd are realists, they understand it is better to be prepared than to rely on these groups to always be there to protect them in times of crisis, to provide not only security but sustenance. Hence why the anti-gun crowd gets called out for believing in [/SIZE]rainbows and unicorns while the pro-gun crowd gets labeled paranoid.

 

[Chaka]

Chaka, remember this is who you're dealing with. Doomsday Preppers indeed.

3 Cases of MRE's. 6 Blankets. 30 Gallons of water. Radio. Flashlights. Lots of batteries. Lighters. Ammo. Rolls of plastic. Medic Trauma Bag. Duct Tape. $500 in cash. some other stuff.... but yeah. I've got a "Trunk" in the corner of a storage room.

[SIZE=10.5pt]This post sums up the differences between the anti-gun crowd and the pro-gun crowd succinctly. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Anti-gun crowd believes in big government. A large government that will always be there to protect them in times of crisis. No matter how many L.A. Riots, Hurricanes, Superstorms, Christopher Dorners, nor terrorists running through neighborhoods with homemade IED's, car jackings and hostage takings, the anti-gun crowd has a blind faith loyalty to the government and local agencies to always be there to protect them in a timely fashion since they do not see any of those examples as threats to them since they personally have never been victims in the past. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The pro-gun crowd are realists, they understand it is better to be prepared than to rely on these groups to always be there to protect them in times of crisis, to provide not only security but sustenance. Hence why the anti-gun crowd gets called out for believing in rainbows and unicorns while the pro-gun crowd gets labeled paranoid.[/SIZE]

The exact opposite argument can be made about the "pro-gun crowd" and their preparations for the zombie apocalypse.

 

[Chaka]

And I really wish you wouldn't oversimplify this into pro and anti-gun. I am pro-gun. I own three guns. I support the rights of citizens to own guns.

I also recognize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country and the solution of giving more guns to people simply does not work, talk about rainbows and unicorns

We need to do something more than what we are doing because the status quo is not working.

Why is that such a problem for some of you? The government is not coming to take all your guns. Ever.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Chaka, remember this is who you're dealing with. Doomsday Preppers indeed.

3 Cases of MRE's. 6 Blankets. 30 Gallons of water. Radio. Flashlights. Lots of batteries. Lighters. Ammo. Rolls of plastic. Medic Trauma Bag. Duct Tape. $500 in cash. some other stuff.... but yeah. I've got a "Trunk" in the corner of a storage room.

[SIZE=10.5pt]This post sums up the differences between the anti-gun crowd and the pro-gun crowd succinctly. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Anti-gun crowd believes in big government. A large government that will always be there to protect them in times of crisis. No matter how many L.A. Riots, Hurricanes, Superstorms, Christopher Dorners, nor terrorists running through neighborhoods with homemade IED's, car jackings and hostage takings, the anti-gun crowd has a blind faith loyalty to the government and local agencies to always be there to protect them in a timely fashion since they do not see any of those examples as threats to them since they personally have never been victims in the past. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The pro-gun crowd are realists, they understand it is better to be prepared than to rely on these groups to always be there to protect them in times of crisis, to provide not only security but sustenance. Hence why the anti-gun crowd gets called out for believing in rainbows and unicorns while the pro-gun crowd gets labeled paranoid.[/SIZE]

The exact opposite argument can be made about the "pro-gun crowd" and their preparations for the zombie apocalypse.

Right, because clearly that is what icon was doing.

 

[Novice2]

And I really wish you wouldn't oversimplify this into pro and anti-gun. I am pro-gun. I own three guns. I support the rights of citizens to own guns. I also recognize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country and the solution of giving more guns to people simply does not work, talk about rainbows and unicorns We need to do something more than what we are doing because the status quo is not working. Why is that such a problem for some of you? The government is not coming to take all your guns. Ever.

if we have a serious gun violence problem now what did we have two or three decades ago?

 

[Chaka]

And I really wish you wouldn't oversimplify this into pro and anti-gun. I am pro-gun. I own three guns. I support the rights of citizens to own guns. I also recognize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country and the solution of giving more guns to people simply does not work, talk about rainbows and unicorns We need to do something more than what we are doing because the status quo is not working. Why is that such a problem for some of you? The government is not coming to take all your guns. Ever.

if we have a serious gun violence problem now what did we have two or three decades ago?

A serious gun problem.

 

[Chaka]

Chaka, remember this is who you're dealing with. Doomsday Preppers indeed.

3 Cases of MRE's. 6 Blankets. 30 Gallons of water. Radio. Flashlights. Lots of batteries. Lighters. Ammo. Rolls of plastic. Medic Trauma Bag. Duct Tape. $500 in cash. some other stuff.... but yeah. I've got a "Trunk" in the corner of a storage room.

[SIZE=10.5pt]This post sums up the differences between the anti-gun crowd and the pro-gun crowd succinctly. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Anti-gun crowd believes in big government. A large government that will always be there to protect them in times of crisis. No matter how many L.A. Riots, Hurricanes, Superstorms, Christopher Dorners, nor terrorists running through neighborhoods with homemade IED's, car jackings and hostage takings, the anti-gun crowd has a blind faith loyalty to the government and local agencies to always be there to protect them in a timely fashion since they do not see any of those examples as threats to them since they personally have never been victims in the past. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The pro-gun crowd are realists, they understand it is better to be prepared than to rely on these groups to always be there to protect them in times of crisis, to provide not only security but sustenance. Hence why the anti-gun crowd gets called out for believing in rainbows and unicorns while the pro-gun crowd gets labeled paranoid.[/SIZE]

The exact opposite argument can be made about the "pro-gun crowd" and their preparations for the zombie apocalypse.

Right, because clearly that is what icon was doing.

What you said, in reverse.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And I really wish you wouldn't oversimplify this into pro and anti-gun. I am pro-gun. I own three guns. I support the rights of citizens to own guns.

I also recognize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country and the solution of giving more guns to people simply does not work, talk about rainbows and unicorns

We need to do something more than what we are doing because the status quo is not working.

Why is that such a problem for some of you? The government is not coming to take all your guns. Ever.

The law hasn't changed in a manner that can be construed that way has it? The anti-gun crowd ultimately assumes all gun owners are dangerous and will limit gun ownership in any way possible even when it really has no positive effect on the current narrative.. Banning a gun because it has a folding stock, or a pistol grip, or a heat guard is just ridiculous.. Do you not agree?

 

[Chaka]

And I really wish you wouldn't oversimplify this into pro and anti-gun. I am pro-gun. I own three guns. I support the rights of citizens to own guns. I also recognize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country and the solution of giving more guns to people simply does not work, talk about rainbows and unicorns We need to do something more than what we are doing because the status quo is not working. Why is that such a problem for some of you? The government is not coming to take all your guns. Ever.

The law hasn't changed in a manner that can be construed that way has it? The anti-gun crowd ultimately assumes all gun owners are dangerous and will limit gun ownership in any way possible even when it really has no positive effect on the current narrative.. Banning a gun because it has a folding stock, or a pistol grip, or a heat guard is just ridiculous.. Do you not agree?

I wish you would stop talking about gun control in terms of pro and anti-gun, it is more nuanced than that. I do not assume all gun owners are dangerous, seeing that I am a gun owner, but I am being lumped in the anti-gun crowd. What narrative are we talking about? We have more guns per capita than any nation that isn't in the midst of a civil war. Seems that this nationwide social experiment is failing. Do you sincerely believe that if we increased or even mandated arming our citizens that we would somehow have less gun violence?