The reason the want to take your guns

[TurtleDude]

Thanks for admitting your argument was ridiculous.

thanks for submitting another silly argument that has no basis in fact

Here is the argument for others

1) in the government created criminal environment due to prohibition, some gangsters stole rare Tommy guns from police arsenals, National Guard Armories or in the mail, and used a few of these guns to commit well publicized murders.

2) in an effort to pander to the sheep, FDR tried to ban all sorts of guns, but the best he was able to do was to impose an onerous tax (current value over 2400 dollars) of 200 dollars (more than a good machinist made in a month back then) on the transfer of each such weapon. The cost of the tax, the scarcity of the weapon, and then the outbreak of WWII meant few of these firearms were introduced into the private civilian market

3) Heavy and expensive, the Tommy gun had few attributes that made it desirable to criminals. It is hard to conceal, very heavy and was never easily available. Since the start of WWII, there are no cases of a privately owned legal tommy gun being used for a violent crime.

4) That is true with all legally owned automatic weapons.

5) IN 1986, the GOP had the senate, the White house and there were enough blue dog democrats for the McClure-Volker Firearms Protection Act to be assured passage. This bill modified some of the problems of the 1968 GCA-notably, states, such as New Jersey, could not arrest someone driving through that state with a firearm that was properly secured in their trunk.

6) virulent gun hater, Bill Hughes (now dead) wanted to derail this bill. Late one night, with Charles Rangel as acting Speaker, they attached a poison pill to the MV Act, that prevented citizens from being able to "register" automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986. He knew that this would allow the ATF to ban modern automatics. Reagan's white house counsel-predicting (accurately) that the GOP would lose the senate in November 1986, and predicting the courts would strike down the poison pill-advised he sign the mostly good bill.

He did

the Hughes amendment clearly proves that the Democrats (the voice vote in favor of the amendment was dubious in its support but Rangel refused to do a roll call vote) passed a law designed to harass gun owners, that had nothing to do with crime control. Hughes never even submitted any evidence as to the need for this bill. He was just pissed off it was going to pass

 

[dave8383]

thanks for submitting another silly argument that has no basis in fact

......................................sniparino.............................................

The facts. The reason fully automatic weapons aren't used for killing people, and other unsavory activities, here is because they're so heavily regulated. Duh. If they were as easy to acquire as the Turtle wants they would be used for unsavory purposes. Double duh.

 

[TurtleDude]

The facts. The reason fully automatic weapons aren't used for killing people, and other unsavory activities, here is because they're so heavily regulated. Duh. If they were as easy to acquire as the Turtle wants they would be used for unsavory purposes. Double duh.

why are you so afraid to answer the question

what was the NEED to ban them from being sold if they were made after May 19,1986, if the prior regulation was effective

you can dance around that question all you want-I think we all know why. You supported the ban because it harasses people you don't like

 

[dave8383]

why are you so afraid to answer the question

what was the NEED to ban them from being sold if they were made after May 19,1986, if the prior regulation was effective

you can dance around that question all you want-I think we all know why. You supported the ban because it harasses people you don't like

You lost, give up.

 

[TurtleDude]

You lost, give up.

I will let the readers determine who"lost". evasions and childish avoidance is hardly winning.

 

[dave8383]

I will let the readers determine who"lost"

Here's a clue for you, no one gives a shit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here's a clue for you, no one gives a shit.

Here's a clue, your failure to actually address the issues are seen by several

 

[vegas giants]

Here's a clue for you, no one gives a shit.

This thread is over

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It is undeniable that many democrats want to and have and will continue to try to take guns.

Are they too stupid to know better? Man...that is such a loaded question. Have you READ some of the comments by anti-gun leftists on this site? Have you SEEN some of the comments made by gun banning morons?


Considering most anti gun leftist morons dont know the first thing about guns, I'd lean heavily towards the "yes they are too stupid to know better" option. But I suppose some know better and are just corrupt pieces of shit.

Ok, but since they don't have any chance at all of succeeding, gun rights is a non-issue, isn't it? As long as we agree with Democrats on other issues, we can vote for them without having to worry that they might ever actually take our guns.

 

[rickc]

Most progressive Democrats cheer countries that do not have freedom of speech, do not have freedom of religion, and where no average person could ever possibly join the ranks of the super rich. Germany is way up that list. One reason Germans post on this American forum as they would be imprisoned if they posted the same messages on a German forum. The Democratic Party - the party of war and death responsible for over 90% of American war deaths - love disarmed populations of countries overrun in wars and with governments overthrown by radicals with a disarmed population.

Wow

I bet you actually believe that BS

Did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama ever propose any of this BS?

And you think Biden will?

You really need to change your sources of information.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok, but since they don't have any chance at all of succeeding, gun rights is a non-issue, isn't it? As long as we agree with Democrats on other issues, we can vote for them without having to worry that they might ever actually take our guns.

you all think that all that is to be worried about is taking guns. I have said that the dems are not about TAKING guns. Its about killing off pro gun organizations by making the shooting sports too expensive and too much of a hassle for the average working person. When that happens, many will drop membership in various pro gun organizations.

some of the ways dems have harassed gun ownership are as follows

1) banning some types of commonly owned rifles in some states
2) banning normal capacity magazines-handicapping citizens when dealing with armed criminals
3) imposing increased taxes and fees on those who seek to buy guns, ammo or permits to carry
4) limiting how many guns you may legally buy in a month
5) imposing waiting periods or other hassles upon those seeking to buy guns
6) demanding gun owners engage in affirmative duties, such as registering their weapons-often with a fee-with the police

 

[VanceMack]

Ok, but since they don't have any chance at all of succeeding, gun rights is a non-issue, isn't it? As long as we agree with Democrats on other issues, we can vote for them without having to worry that they might ever actually take our guns.

Tell that to the people in California...and Connecticut...and New York.

 

[TurtleDude]

Tell that to the people in California...and Connecticut...and New York.

It is doubtful the banocrats can get anything to stick federally given the current supreme court or hopefully the soon to be IMPROVED supreme court. So they pass this crap in deep blue states-hoping for two things-1) to drive gun owners out so as to solidify their power and 2) to create "precedents" for such bans in order to advance them to other states-and ultimately the federal government

 

[haymarket]

So, what most Generation Z types are afraid of? Getting shot at school, work, a concert, the movie theater, etc.

You are proceeding from I strongly believe is a false premise. People are not afraid they will get shot at school or work or during some entertainment activity. They know the odds and the odds are not scary to them.

What this comes down to is a simple question: what kind of society do you want to live in?

For many people the answer is a simple one: a society without so many guns.

I know gun fans do not like when that is said but it is the key question.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

you all think that all that is to be worried about is taking guns. I have said that the dems are not about TAKING guns. Its about killing off pro gun organizations by making the shooting sports too expensive and too much of a hassle for the average working person. When that happens, many will drop membership in various pro gun organizations.

some of the ways dems have harassed gun ownership are as follows

1) banning some types of commonly owned rifles in some states
2) banning normal capacity magazines-handicapping citizens when dealing with armed criminals
3) imposing increased taxes and fees on those who seek to buy guns, ammo or permits to carry
4) limiting how many guns you may legally buy in a month
5) imposing waiting periods or other hassles upon those seeking to buy guns
6) demanding gun owners engage in affirmative duties, such as registering their weapons-often with a fee-with the police

Well, I don't think few affirmative duties and waiting periods, etc. are so bad, as long as that's all it is. And y'all seem to be reassuring folks that it isn't some kind of slippery slope that will eventually lead to Democrats taking our guns, so no big deal really.

Every time we get a Democrat in office the budget deficits go down, so a little inconvenience when buying a gun doesn't seem like it is something to really make an issue of.

 

[vegas giants]

Well, I don't think few affirmative duties and waiting periods, etc. are so bad, as long as that's all it is. And y'all seem to be reassuring folks that it isn't some kind of slippery slope that will eventually lead to Democrats taking our guns, so no big deal really.

Every time we get a Democrat in office the budget deficits go down, so a little inconvenience when buying a gun doesn't seem like it is something to really make an issue of.

Oh that makes you a bannerhoid on here. It means you hate america and apple pie and baseball. And are a commie. LOL

 

[Chillfolks]

Well, I don't think few affirmative duties and waiting periods, etc. are so bad, as long as that's all it is. And y'all seem to be reassuring folks that it isn't some kind of slippery slope that will eventually lead to Democrats taking our guns, so no big deal really.

Every time we get a Democrat in office the budget deficits go down, so a little inconvenience when buying a gun doesn't seem like it is something to really make an issue of.

Just wondering if there are other rights we should inconvenience people To exercise?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Just wondering if there are other rights we should inconvenience people To exercise?

Sure. We should inconvenience food manufacturers to prove the veracity of their claims when exercising their 1st amendment rights to write whatever they want on an ingredients list. I'm fine with giving folks some hoops to jump through before they can print "Approved by the FDA as a cure for cancer" on the labels of their snake oil.

 

[Chillfolks]

Sure. We should inconvenience food manufacturers to prove the veracity of their claims when exercising their 1st amendment rights to write whatever they want on an ingredients list. I'm fine with giving folks some hoops to jump through before they can print "Approved by the FDA as a cure for cancer" on the labels of their snake oil.

Cool so do you also support voter ID laws?
Laws that require women to watch fetus videos before an abortion?

 

[VanceMack]

This is pretty much your typical leftist view on gun control...and sadly its also the view of a bunch of piece of shit 'gun owning' Chamberlains.

 

[Court Jester]

Everyone has a natural right to self protection. The right exists apart from anything the constitution provides to protect that natural right. EVERYONE including criminals have a natural right to self protection. Not in conjunction with committing a crime, but even criminals may be targeted by others, so they too have the right to defend their lives.

Here is the test for the natural right to self protection:

Suddenly a crazy person with a rifle storms into a shopping mall and begins to kill people. A gang member with a felony record is there with his girlfriend shopping for sneakers and baby clothes and he is carrying a concealed firearm which he is prohibited by law to own. In the melee he elects to pull that illegal firearm and defend not only his life, the life of his girlfriend, but also other innocent citizens about to be slaughtered, and he does so, killing/stopping the crazed shooter.

Now which moral law has the gang banger broken? Where in the natural law (logical law) did he not have a right to protect his life or the innocent lives of others? Which prosecutor would seek to put this man in prison for violating the current gun laws.... he was not there at the shopping mall to commit any crimes.

Wouldn't George Floyd have had a natural right to use deadly lethal force against the police officer who killed him? I say yes, he would have. So would have any bystander there who may have elected to intervene with a gun to save Floyd's life.

The 2nd Amendment grants me nothing I didn't have anyway. They could amend or remove the 2nd Amendment protections in our constitution and we all still have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for both our individual and group protection against criminals or a tyrannical government.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Cool so do you also support voter ID laws?
Laws that require women to watch fetus videos before an abortion?

No. I don't see any merit to those particular examples.

 

[Chillfolks]

No. I don't see any merit to those particular examples.

Thank you for answering I disagree on your points but appreciate the answer

 

[dave8383]

Here's a clue, your failure to actually address the issues are seen by several

You mean the pretend issue you made up after you lost the debate?

The facts. The reason fully automatic weapons aren't used for killing people, and other unsavory activities, here is because they're so heavily regulated. Duh. If they were as easy to acquire as the Turtle wants they would be used for unsavory purposes. Double duh.

 

[zsu2357]

I doubt it-I think if the judges don't do their jobs, we will have a civil war and my side will win that rather convincingly.

Sounds like another person that is itching to stack up and go through that door.