quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I wonder if the pro gun crowd on these boards will ever get tired of defending the gun ownership laws in this country? Just one nut killing after another and all they can think about is their toys... It is sickening and I am beginning to think they are just as insane as those killing women and children.
Marini talking to these assholes is not going to change their selfish minds. Pointing out the absurdity of their stand on guns is sadly a waste of time
Butch

I wonder if the anti gun crowd on these boards will ever get tired of ignoring the other constant in the mass shootings (as bolded above).

Then LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!! Lets get killing guns out of the hands of the insane... who is ignoring THAT! Nearly one in every five gun owners is mentally ill to one extent or another... lets at least try to weed out the dangerous among them and get mass killing weapons out of their possession.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
What I don't get is why the pro-gun crowd keeps saying 'it would work if only all of these millions of people across the country always did their job perfectly every single time and never made mistakes' without recognizing that the issue is that a system where they are expected to do so is exactly the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

theres something deeper, more philosophical, more essential to the differences between left and right.

Yes the ability to defend yourself speaks of independence from the government
as opposed to dependence. Both Tx and Ca can be wholly blamed on government screw-ups and
to some on here they prove that we have to give the government more control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I wonder if the pro gun crowd on these boards will ever get tired of defending the gun ownership laws in this country? Just one nut killing after another and all they can think about is their toys... It is sickening and I am beginning to think they are just as insane as those killing women and children.
Marini talking to these assholes is not going to change their selfish minds. Pointing out the absurdity of their stand on guns is sadly a waste of time
Butch

I wonder if the anti gun crowd on these boards will ever get tired of ignoring the other constant in the mass shootings (as bolded above).

Then LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!! Lets get killing guns out of the hands of the insane... who is ignoring THAT! Nearly one in every five gun owners is mentally ill to one extent or another... lets at least try to weed out the dangerous among them and get mass killing weapons out of their possession.

Butch

Any gun that goes on a killing spree on its own should be melted down.

quote:

(preceded by a lot of material concerning the ct school shooting a few years ago)

What you have to understand is that, for liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about supressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Gun ownership puts power into the hands of the people and therefore they are less dependent on the government. Owning a gun at the time of need gives the law-abiding gun owner the ability to make the decision as to whether the use of force is lawful, right, and justified. The American Left doesn’t believe ordinary citizens have the ability to make such decisions, hence their love affair with gun control.

Liberals prefer major life decisions to be made by the government. Consider issues such as government-run healthcare, the redistribution of wealth via the progressive tax system, and the lack of school choice as just a few examples that run parallel to their “government knows best” mentality present in those calling for more gun control and less overall guns. Again, it’s not about the guns, it’s about whether the people or the government should have the power.

Owning a gun makes a citizen more independent from his government. Visit the more rural areas of this great nation, which with no coincidence less liberals live, and you will find high levels of gun ownership and rightfully so.

These folks may be several miles from a police station. They cannot rely on law enforcement to stop a would-be assailant in their homes when law enforcement officials may be ten, twenty, or more miles away. There just isn’t enough time.

That brings us back to the tragedy of Newtown. You see, the government failed to protect the lives of those twenty kids and the adults. Government, in the form of the police and the school district, did their best. The rules were followed in not allowing the killer easy access to the building and the area police arrived in only a few minutes. But, the police weren’t quick enough as is often the case in a homicide situation. By the time officers arrived to school grounds, the killer had shot dozens of times.

Government simply failed, though not because of a lack of effort. It was impossible for government in the form of the police, with the time limitations persent in this tragedy, to save those killed in the school building. Government could not have save those people. There wasn’t enough time.

In fact, the only thing that could have stopped the killer that fateful day was a mortal wound to the killer shot via a gun in the hand of someone in that school building. This is an undeniable fact. The killer, who obviously wasn’t interested in the law at the time of the killing, could have stolen the guns to do the horrible dead, or obtained the guns in some other illegal way. Banning some so-called assault weapons wouldn’t have stopped this tragedy. Only a bullet to the killer would have, but nobody in that building could have lawfully carried a loaded weapon.

In the end, of course, it was a gun that ended the killer’s life. While the murderer used his own gun to kill himself, it was the threat of retaliation from the guns of law enforcement that caused him to take his own life. His life could have ended much earlier and perhaps two dozen or more lives saved if someone armed in the school would have had the capability to shoot him. However, they were absent the power since the school was a gun-free zone.

A lesson from the Newtown tragedy is that government is limited in its ability to protect the citizens of this nation. It always has been, hence the Founders placing the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. In these cases, the people need to have the powere to protect themselves, a power that was sorely absent in Newtown.

Liberals are simply on the wrong side of this issue. They are putting their passion for government power and intrusion ahead of the safety of the American citizens, whether they be in their homes, schools, or anywhere else in which they are threatened with their life.

quote:

After every mass shooting we see the same reaction. The Left instantly demands we must ‘do something’ to stop gun violence, attacks the NRA, accuses gun advocates of being responsible for murder and generally exposes their consistent, yet passionate, ignorance on the entire subject. No matter how many times we correct them on their glaring mistakes and wrong information, they continue repeating it with ever more outrage and indignation.

But it goes much deeper than just political opposition. For a full understanding of the pro-gun argument I would recommend reading Dana Loesch’s Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America and Charles C. W. Cooke’s The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right’s Future. Ben Shapiro is also an excellent advocate and so are many other conservative and libertarian voices. Guns have never been of particular interest to me personally and I am not equipped to argue the nuances of the topic.

Interestingly, this does not disable me from effectively countering the Left’s many arguments surrounding guns as the primary issue of rights and American freedom trump whatever reasoning they attempt to provide. But the experts in the field, as mentioned above, should be referenced whenever possible.

The Right’s argument is pretty simple. The Constitution recognizes the natural, understood right of a person to own a firearm. It does not grant a right or give permission, nor does the government. The 2nd Amendment simply states what the founders understood to be an obvious truth. It really doesn’t matter what guns are used for or the emotional opposition to them, it is a right plain and simple.

And while I am not an expert on guns, having never used one, nor a particular advocate, I have no personal interest in owning one, I do have direct experience in the mindset of the anti-gun advocate. I used to be one. Here is a breakdown of what I believe explains the irrationally passionate opposition to guns by the Left based on my own experience and battling liberals on the issue for years.

Reliance on Government

The Right and the Left react to law differently. The Right generally view laws as useful tools in organizing society, but are easily manipulated through proper channels when necessary. The Left views law as a moral guidebook detailing what is right and what is wrong and generally defer to the law as an ultimate authority. When a mass shooting happens the Right is mostly interested in motivation and methodology. The Left demands to know why the government allowed it occur in the first place.

You can see this in how both sides respond on social media and how the media itself reports on the event. The Right demands facts, information and details of the person who committed the crime while the Left wails on about our general culture of violence, the NRA and gun owners with blood on their hands. It is typically baffling to the average person on the Right how one can view an isolated madman with a gun killing people as representative of the millions of peaceful gun owners across the country and demand to hold them accountable.

However, the Left associates advocacy of gun ownership with responsibility for gun violence. They firmly believe that the NRA manipulates or bullies Congress into shutting down vital gun protection laws. Naturally, if the NRA is invested in preventing people from being protected from gun violence, they must want gun violence. The more moderate opposition will argue negligence while the more vocal on the Left accuse the NRA of being a terrorist organization responsible for mass shootings.

None of this makes sense until you realize the core of their concern is the belief that the government is responsible for the absolute safety of the citizenry. To the Left, this translates as a demand that the government intervene to prevent any harm in any situation from befalling any citizen. This is why they are such advocates for centralized, government controlled regulatory agencies. To the Left, the gun problem is simple. If the government simply did a better job at preventing guns from being freely handed out to the population like candy, we wouldn’t have mass shootings or gun violence.

The Left seems incapable of understanding that legality is meaningless to the illegally inclined. Which brings us to the emotion associated with this obsession: safety.

Feelings of Safety

If I were to notice a trend of violence in my area, robberies, shootings, etc., I would likely do several things. I would attempt to reasonably avoid dangerous areas or situations in the trend and be more aware of my surroundings if required to be in close proximity to them. If I felt threatened or afraid I would arm myself with some form of self-defense. My options could include pepper spray to owning and carrying a gun. I would educate myself on self-defense. This does not guarantee my safety, but it would certainly provide me with ease of mind and give me a better chance at surviving an attack.

The Left, however, does not think in these terms. Liberals tend to believe their personal emotions are the direct consequence of other’s actions and behaviors. People cause them to be afraid. Therefore the responsibility falls to the outside world to make them feel safe. Guns make liberals feel afraid and so they believe you should not be allowed to carry one.

In larger terms this explains the utter obsession with ‘gun control.’ Liberals always demand, with a great sense of righteous outrage, that we need ‘common sense gun control’ and we need it now. They often declare ‘Enough is enough!’ and place the blame squarely on the Right for standing in the way. The Right understands that ‘gun control’ is a meaningless phrase that translates into gun restriction for responsible gun owners while doing absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining whatever they want.

To the Right, if we restrict gun ownership even more than we already do it will simply empower the violent to prey on the ever-more helpless population bound by government regulation and civic duty to obey the law. To the Left, however, ‘gun control’ translates into ‘the government is doing something to make me safe.’

The Left relies on the government to protect them and therefore they believe, with absolute conviction, that only the government can stop gun violence.

Ignorance About Guns

The Left is profoundly ignorant on the nature of guns or gun ownership. From the absurd mis-reading of the 2nd Amendment to arguments over ‘who needs this or that gun’ the Left routinely shows it has no idea what it is talking about. Liberals believe you can walk into the grocery store and walk out with a machine gun and a bag of chips and soda. They love to make the argument ‘it is easier to get a gun than to…’ and then go on to cite provably false examples.

They seem unaware of current gun regulation or legal standards and simply do not respond when we point out that everything they demand be put in place already is. They cannot tell the difference between types of guns, preferring to simply refer to them all as ‘assault weapons’ and they repeat provably false statistics claiming more guns equal more violence.

Furthermore they genuinely cannot fathom why any individual needs or would want a firearm. To the Left, rights are dependent on need. If the Left determines the general population no longer ‘needs’ something, they see no reason to maintain a right to it. They genuinely believe the government ‘allows’ the citizenry to own guns.

Therefore their reasoning forces them to view gun advocates as violence advocates since they can see no other purpose for guns.

Anti-American Culture

The Left has positioned itself as the opposition party to American culture. Progressively we have seen them portray everything from the founding to the flag, the anthem, monuments, patriotic heroes and so on as racist, terroristic, hateful and outdated. Guns represent a period before the progressive enlightenment when people shot each other in the streets and racists were marching waving rifles in the air. Guns paint a picture of violence, authoritarianism, conquest and oppression in the mind of the Left.

The Left is fond of making the argument that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, we only had muskets and therefore the amendment serves no current purpose. In their quest to erase absolutely everything associated with traditional America, guns are their greatest prize. If they can destroy the right to own guns, they have successfully destroyed the nation of evil they have fought so long.

The Left tends to associate gun ownership and advocacy with middle Americans which they consider to be uneducated, bigoted and unimportant. This is the same population that honors the flag, stands in genuine respect for the anthem and openly expresses love for their country. The Left has a particular interest in attacking this specific population and their values.

Liberals whine that other ‘modern’ countries ban guns or heavily restrict them. Their messaging is straightforward. They want America to be Europe because they believe America as she is, is embarrassing. If only we could be as sophisticated and less savage, the world would embrace us.

Finally, they enjoy invoking the stereotype of the ultra-macho persona of the American gun owner. In their quest to destroy masculinity and all concepts of masculine heroics in our culture, gun ownership is a top priority. They like to imagine men own guns to compensate for male inadequacy and there is nothing liberals love more than to shame male insecurity.

Revenge on the Right

And this brings me to the primary reason why the Left hates guns. People often ask me why Leftist Jews oppose Evangelical Christian support of Israel. Every Republican leader for decades has been passionately pro-Israel and yet most American Jews vote Democrat. Why? The reason is liberals associate support for Israel with Christianity and Republicanism. The Left is so blinded by hatred for the Right they cannot allow themselves to stand on common ground with them on any issue.

The same is true about guns. The Right cares about protecting the 2nd Amendment so the Left is determined to tear it all down. I often see liberals reference the 2nd Amendment as a ‘Republican’ issue, for example. In their minds it is no different than the Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, government-paid contraception or anti-abortion messaging.

Unfortunately the Left and the Right are arguing two separate issues. While the Right is interested in defending a core right from the progressive tendency to destroy the house to kill a spider, the Left is fixated on their emotions and illusion of safety. It does not matter how many statistics we debunk, how much reasoning we provide, how strongly we advocate for rights or how many of their lies we openly correct, the Left believes we shouldn’t own guns.

It is the responsibility of the Republican party to prevent the Democratic party from hastily imposing ‘gun control’ measures onto the population in response to the emotional outcry immediately after a terrorist attack or shooting. We must remain level headed and fact-driven and continue repeating the absolute truth that the right to own guns is simply not up for debate. The Left has already made too much progress in restricting that right. We cannot allow their irrational hatred of America to destroy it any further.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

its really not an answer to my point.

no one is suggesting ignoring means of murder or mass murder. im not making an either/or proposition.

im suggesting that since the left makes so much fuss about guns in particular when it comes to murder, when there are so many other ways that they don't fuss over, that something else is likely going on as concerns guns.

How many times have you seen the gun grabbers on here argue that the
.223 is more powerful than a 30-06 0r .308 and for that reason alone
should be banned. They argue from a position of ignorance.

I've not.
I have, on the other hand, seen you repeatedly insist that they are, while failing to back this claim up. A cynic would probably feel that this is what they call a strawman argument.

Them or a person who doesn't pay attention.
How many times have you seen that if you can do something with a "06
"
then there I no need for a person to have something as powerful as an AR-15.

Who on here has made the argument that you're attributing to the evil gun grabbers?
If you can't find something to support your allegation, why are you lying?

For example Kdsub asked why if you can do the job wit an -06 or a 390-30 why do you need to move up to an AR.
Many people have referred to the AR as too powerful for citizens to own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

a very long, but absolutely poignant, excellent, must-read piece:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I am not sure what you mean.
Butch

How do we ensure those with mental health issues don't pass their mental health screens by those who are very pro 2nd Amendment?
The opportunity for appeal works when one thinks one has been unfairly prevented from buying a gun, but who is going to appeal being allowed to buy a gun when one has been falsely passed?

You forget that wrongly letting someone pass would destroy a practice, losing 1000 appeals
by people who were wrongly stopped wouldn't.

quote:

Now of course not every mental illness will manifest itself in mass murderer but an examination may be able to determine the severity... at least at the minimum it would keep some of the insane from getting weapons.


[Bold/Italics mine]

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Yeah, you just totally missed my point as usual.

Oooooor, I think your point is invalid.

No, it is glaringly obvious that you missed the point.
Improving the system has nothing to do with installing a fucking supercomputer that makes all decisions and replaces all humans.
I am talking about recognizing that people are flawed and that the current approach relies on them too much, which is why it isn't working.
Believe it or not, there are less absurd alternatives to Skynet-- other countries have had them in place for many years.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


The problem is that you actually consider it a personal attack whenever someone suggests that maybe guns should be more difficult to access.
I know how the background check system works... you've explained it over and over, and bitched over and over about people not doing their jobs properly.

I am saying that human errors are not going to go away, and we to recognize that problem and make laws around that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Yeah, you just totally missed my point as usual.

Oooooor, I think your point is invalid.

No, it is glaringly obvious that you missed the point.
Improving the system has nothing to do with installing a fucking supercomputer that makes all decisions and replaces all humans.
I am talking about recognizing that people are flawed and that the current approach relies on them too much, which is why it isn't working.
Believe it or not, there are less absurd alternatives to Skynet-- other countries have had them in place for many years.

The only way to get rid of human error in the system is to completely automate it, aka SkyNet. I work in automation. At least 90% of the issues (where I work) are human related. The rest are mechanical breakdowns from wear and tear and/or programming. A big part of my job is to figure out how to get things to run so humans can't fuck it up. The shop is a Union one, so there is also the concern about keeping jobs for humans on top of it. It's mind-boggling at how many stupid errors are committed every single hour of every single shift we run.

Anecdote aside, you're going to have human error until there are no humans involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Dude, to quote my old platoon sargent, if you had a half a brain you would be dangerous.

I do not consider it a 'personal' attack, I consider it an attack against the rights of any American who ones a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And you are calling the entire police force in this community not doing the job they were sworn to do a human error?

It is negligence on a scale that is unbelievable.

With a judges order on record that he was to turn over all guns, with complaints by neighbors AFTER the order was in place of him firing weapons on his property, with the police admitting that when they investigated these complaints they left because he did not answer the fucking door?

You are calling this human error?

There was ample just cause for a search warrant considering those complaints showing he had not complied with the court order, which is contempt of court and in every state, is a felony!

And you say that police are intimidated by gun owners?

What the hell do you think SWAT teams are for?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Sweet fucking god, you excuse the police not doing their job and go straight to, take guns away from law abiding citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Hell with everything that was not done according to procedure, this would be the basis for some reboot of the Police Academy movies if it hadnt ended with people being killed.

If I lived in that town I would be calling for the termination of every officer who was involved with complaints on this guy with the possibility of criminal charges to follow.

Human error that ends with people dead is not human error, it is negligence. And when it is the people who are sworn and paid to protect the safety of the public, it is inexcusable.

And if you werent so dead set against people owning guns, you would see that.

Instead your first and only response is to get rid of the guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Yeah, you just totally missed my point as usual.

Oooooor, I think your point is invalid.

No, it is glaringly obvious that you missed the point.
Improving the system has nothing to do with installing a fucking supercomputer that makes all decisions and replaces all humans.
I am talking about recognizing that people are flawed and that the current approach relies on them too much, which is why it isn't working.
Believe it or not, there are less absurd alternatives to Skynet-- other countries have had them in place for many years.

The only way to get rid of human error in the system is to completely automate it, aka SkyNet. I work in automation. At least 90% of the issues (where I work) are human related. The rest are mechanical breakdowns from wear and tear and/or programming. A big part of my job is to figure out how to get things to run so humans can't fuck it up. The shop is a Union one, so there is also the concern about keeping jobs for humans on top of it. It's mind-boggling at how many stupid errors are committed every single hour of every single shift we run.
Anecdote aside, you're going to have human error until there are no humans involved.

Yes, so why does America have a system where anyone can get a gun until someone finally remembers/realizes they've made a mistake and puts their name in the system?
Why not have a system where someone must PROVE that they HAVEN'T committed a crime EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO BUY A GUN?
Why not force EVERYONE to produce evidence of a clean criminal record before any gun can be sold to them whatsoever?
Something that must be issued by a police department and expires within a month or so?
A document or ticket or card of some kind?
I will tell you why-- it's because of the second amendment people.
They see this as an attack on them personally instead of a hurdle they should jump because they care about gun violence and want to do something about it.
They will keep proposing totally ineffective solutions and fail to recognize that the real problem is their own toxic nationalist dogma.
EVEN IF THEY STILL GET THEIR PRECIOUS GUN IN THE END, it is totally unacceptable that they would have to wait even an extra day for it.
I don't know how many mass shootings, dead family members, dead children, suicides, etc. it will even take... I doubt that any number is high enough, as long as they can keep coming back to this 'people really should be more perfect' shite and then start whining about rights being taken away.
FFS... it's a GUN, not food, not water, not your house, not your car, your family or anything of vital importance.
So you like hunting-- wow, great... can't you go to the fucking supermarket for a week or a month (you can even order food online nowadays!) while the police process your application and get everything you need ready???
People hunted with primitive spears and bows and arrows for thousands of years, and you need a fucking semi-automatic rifle because you don't want to pay for food that you can easily afford anyways?
It boggles the mind, seriously... any time a solution is proposed, any time someone suggests that there is a problem-- the discussion ends up being 'OMG HELP THEY WANNA TAKE ALL OUR GUNS AND LEAVE US DEFENSELESS!'
Or 'wanna ban cars too? LOL libruls'.
Seriously-- usually when a problem is recognized in society, the government will try to solve that problem and the people agree that we should at least TRY an alternative solution.
Not so with the gun problem.

quote:

Every single time we have this discussion, I am seriously in awe of how deranged some people have allowed themselves to get.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Dude, to quote my old platoon sargent, if you had a half a brain you would be dangerous.
I do not consider it a 'personal' attack, I consider it an attack against the rights of any American who ones a gun.

That's actually much worse.
I honestly can't imagine that you will ever be reasonable about this topic, or understand how insane your rhetoric is.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And you are calling the entire police force in this community not doing the job they were sworn to do a human error?
It is negligence on a scale that is unbelievable.
With a judges order on record that he was to turn over all guns, with complaints by neighbors AFTER the order was in place of him firing weapons on his property, with the police admitting that when they investigated these complaints they left because he did not answer the fucking door?
You are calling this human error?
There was ample just cause for a search warrant considering those complaints showing he had not complied with the court order, which is contempt of court and in every state, is a felony!
And you say that police are intimidated by gun owners?
What the hell do you think SWAT teams are for?

What are you even talking about?
Are you saying negligence isn't human error?
I don't understand this.
I don't even know if you understand this.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Sweet fucking god, you excuse the police not doing their job and go straight to, take guns away from law abiding citizens.

No, I don't do that at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Hell with everything that was not done according to procedure, this would be the basis for some reboot of the Police Academy movies if it hadnt ended with people being killed.
If I lived in that town I would be calling for the termination of every officer who was involved with complaints on this guy with the possibility of criminal charges to follow.
Human error that ends with people dead is not human error, it is negligence. And when it is the people who are sworn and paid to protect the safety of the public, it is inexcusable.
And if you werent so dead set against people owning guns, you would see that.
Instead your first and only response is to get rid of the guns.

Yeah, see... we can't discuss this rationally because every single argument becomes 'OMG THEY WANT TO TAKE MUH GUNS'.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri]
It's because it's been identified in our Founding as a 'right' and not as a 'privilege.' We have the privilege of driving, so we have to prove we aren't going to go out and fuck shit up through lack of knowledge of how to drive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri]
Do you support confiscating all firearms from civilians, so that only government representatives - police, FBI, military, etc. - have them?

quote:

Every single time we have this discussion, I am seriously in awe of how deranged some people have allowed themselves to get.

I'm seriously in awe of how deranged some people have allowed themselves to get in opposition to law-abiding people owning firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


Yeah, see... we can't discuss this rationally because every single argument becomes 'OMG THEY WANT TO TAKE MUH GUNS'.

quote:

human error
noun

the propensity for certain common mistakes by people; the making of an error as a natural result of being human

quote:

WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE
the type of negligence that is deliberate with the intentional disregard for other people's welfare.

dereliction of duty
a serious failure to do the things that you are responsible for in your job

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Holy fuck... I literally JUST got finished talking about how rational conversations never take place precisely because the RWNJs are constantly pretending that it's about imposing a TOTAL GUN BAN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

its really not an answer to my point.

no one is suggesting ignoring means of murder or mass murder. im not making an either/or proposition.

im suggesting that since the left makes so much fuss about guns in particular when it comes to murder, when there are so many other ways that they don't fuss over, that something else is likely going on as concerns guns.

How many times have you seen the gun grabbers on here argue that the
.223 is more powerful than a 30-06 0r .308 and for that reason alone
should be banned. They argue from a position of ignorance.

I've not.
I have, on the other hand, seen you repeatedly insist that they are, while failing to back this claim up. A cynic would probably feel that this is what they call a strawman argument.

Them or a person who doesn't pay attention.
How many times have you seen that if you can do something with a "06
"
then there I no need for a person to have something as powerful as an AR-15.

Who on here has made the argument that you're attributing to the evil gun grabbers?
If you can't find something to support your allegation, why are you lying?

For example Kdsub asked why if you can do the job wit an -06 or a 390-30 why do you need to move up to an AR.
Many people have referred to the AR as too powerful for citizens to own.

Where did he mention the calibre that the semi-automatic pastiche of an assault rifle was chambered for, rather than its frame and the size of its magazine?