Why do you NEED your gun there?

[Jerry]

He apparently does not understand the difference between automatic weapons (title II, CLASS III tax stamp) and semi auto firearms

I have to believe the media misrepresents guns used in crime just so that people get confused.

 

[Jerry]

He would have been more effective changing mags.



2012 Aurora shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironic, isn't it....if that shooter had used Clinton Assult Weapon Ban compliant 10rnd magazines instead of a 'high-capacity' drum, he would have killed more people.

 

[Jerry]

ooohh look!

No one is forcing you to work there. If you don't like the terms, find a better job more to your liking

I'm just curious if that's also your position on the minimum wage....

 

[Crimefree]

Read your post. Saw nothing of the kind where you trashed anything. There was nothing that merited any rebuttal.

And we know what your opinion is worth and how blind you are to anything you don't like or cannot answer

 

[Crimefree]

I have to believe the media misrepresents guns used in crime just so that people get confused.

No it is all about inducing FEAR

 

[Crimefree]

I don't agree with any gun limit. I think if you can own a single-shot shotgun then you can be trusted with a belt-fed machiengun.

I think we can find middle-ground on other aspects of gun ownership, however. Any negotion will have to start with a repeal of the machinegun ban and a repeal of the Gun Free School Zone Act, then we can talk about permits, training, gun-buster signs, etc.

I'm just curious, "middle ground" ????? Is not meeting people with irrational fears half way becasue their fears have no bounds and cannot be appeased by some number. A fear is a fear. Middle ground is addressing the root cause of that fear and is in fact our safety. Think about it both firearm owners and gun control advocates both want safer societies. Their approach is diametrically opposed. There is no middle ground in the approach it is all or nothing.

Where firearm owners fall down is not realising that simple fact and changing their rhetoric and educational effort to public safety instead of trying to argue more guns.... More guns simply fuels and feeds gun control advocates fear.

But what do I know the world does not ;-)

 

[Crimefree]

those weren't automatic weapons

the weapons in CT were registered.

so you are wrong

before you "take my arguments apart" you best learn WTF you are talking about

mass shootings make up less than one percent of the murders in the USA and ALMOST ALL TAKE PLACE IN GUN FREE ZONES

Well that sounds like gun free zones may not be magnets to mass murders - it is with the exception of ONE and that is world wide I think.

I don't see the instigators and supporters of these gun free zones crying about the children's lives they have on their hands. Maybe Wellingtin can explain how this responsibility is shirked by gun control advocates.

So Willingtin how do gun control advocates wash the childrens blood from their hands?

 

[Jerry]

I'm just curious, "middle ground" ????? Is not meeting people with irrational fears half way becasue their fears have no bounds and cannot be appeased by some number. A fear is a fear. Middle ground is addressing the root cause of that fear and is in fact our safety. Think about it both firearm owners and gun control advocates both want safer societies. Their approach is diametrically opposed. There is no middle ground in the approach it is all or nothing.

Where firearm owners fall down is not realising that simple fact and changing their rhetoric and educational effort to public safety instead of trying to argue more guns.... More guns simply fuels and feeds gun control advocates fear.

But what do I know the world does not ;-)

Take gun-buster signs on private buisness which are open to the public for example. I personaly want the posting of one to be a crime, while the other side wants ignoring a sign to be a crime. A middle-ground position would be to let each state decide for itself, or let buisness post the sign but you have to refuse to leave before it becomes a crime.

On permits, let's have a federal carry permit which all states have to honor, and if you don't have the federal permit then it's up to each state to decide if you can carry without any permit at all, with recopricity or with a non-resident.

On school zones, maybe some states would like people to take a special class before carrying in a school. I personaly would accept that because the class would educate the armed person about spicific school procedures, drills, and what roll is expected of an armed person in a lock-down event. Here in South Dakota we call such people Sentinals. Maybe the policy is as simple as Sentinals just report to the main office and wait to be assigned to an exit, to escort kids off campus, etc.

Of course, non of this is open for negotiation untill after the Gun Free School Zone Act AND the Houghs Amendment are history.

 

[Crimefree]

1) I am from an English speaking country

Lets tear a crater in this

1 Who cares.

2) the second amendment was written when the fire rate of a gun a 1 rpm, and I believe that citezens have the right to defend themselves with weapons, just not belt fed machine guns and assault rifles.

2 Your knowledge is abysmal. The self loading cartridge was available as well as the gattling gun giving in its time an absolute command of any army that had one. It was the most fearful weapon ever seen and yet.... Your argument is scurrilous at best and a regurgitation of gun control rhetoric at worst. Learn to think for yourself and do a bit of research.

3) criminals are allowed to have guns. When you buy a gun at a store, they don't know what your intentions are, and you can legally own a gun and still be a criminal

3 I'm pretty sure you mean something by this statement but since I do not have your fears I fail to see any significance or importance.

a) "criminal" is a person who has committed a crime and not not paid the debt to society.
b) incarcerated
c) nobody can read minds or predict the future.
d) punishing somebody before they MAY do something is OPPRESSIVE.

A released "criminal" has paid that debt and all rights must be restored.

Are you suggesting every released criminal must be further punished? On what grounds is this punishment? I don't like the way your mind thinks.

4) police should be able to protect citezens. If they fight with a disadvantage to criminals, how are they supposed to save lives?

4 How do they save lives? Are police at the coal face of crime like citizens are or do they simply record and investigate crime? Will there be a policeman present at every murder in your convoluted and imaginative thinking?

You are not making any coherent arguments for gun control.

 

[Crimefree]

Take gun-buster signs on private buisness which are open to the public for example. I personaly want the posting of one to be a crime, while the other side wants ignoring a sign to be a crime. A middle-ground position would be to let each state decide for itself, or let buisness post the sign but you have to refuse to leave before it becomes a crime.

On permits, let's have a federal carry permit which all states have to honor, and if you don't have the federal permit then it's up to each state to decide if you can carry without any permit at all, with recopricity or with a non-resident.

On school zones, maybe some states would like people to take a special class before carrying in a school. I personaly would accept that because the class would educate the armed person about spicific school procedures, drills, and what roll is expected of an armed person in a lock-down event. Here in South Dakota we call such people Sentinals. Maybe the policy is as simple as Sentinals just report to the main office and wait to be assigned to an exit, to escort kids off campus, etc.

Of course, non of this is open for negotiation untill after the Gun Free School Zone Act AND the Houghs Amendment are history.

Nah I don't make any arguments for gun control. None of it works and since the poor sucker citizen is paying for all this it would be far better just to work to removing the whole rotten lot instead of agreeing with gun control.

You do realise that a person who has been "trained" to agree with gun control is never ever going to fight that gun control and will probably agree with more restrictions of a similar nature. That way is simply perpetuating gun control and ensuring it can never be defeated. No thanks.

When did you ever see control agree to allow a lesser law to pass or relent on demands?

 

[Jerry]

Nah I don't make any arguments for gun control. None of it works and since the poor sucker citizen is paying for all this it would be far better just to work to removing the whole rotten lot instead of agreeing with gun control.

You do realise that a person who has been "trained" to agree with gun control is never ever going to fight that gun control and will probably agree with more restrictions of a similar nature. That way is simply perpetuating gun control and ensuring it can never be defeated. No thanks.

When did you ever see control agree to allow a lesser law to pass or relent on demands?

I participate in a couple pro-gun forums where the libtard controlers are run off, and the 'middle ground' I speak of here is comromise amung 2A supporters; pro-gun compromising with pro-gun, not pro-gun compromising with anti-gun. Loads of passionat pro-gunners fully support a buisness owner's right to post a sign and ban guns from their property if want, for example. Those pro-gun say it's within the owner's property rights to ban guns and it's within the carrier's right to take their buisness elsewhere.

There's also significant support for some level of manditory training within pro-gun. This ranges from inserting a manditory gun class in highschool to classes for carry permits, but the support is there.

I personaly support a safe storage law, but I understand that not everyone can afford a Browning safe (myself included) and so I think trigger locks are a fair compromise.

Once we stamp out anti-gun we can actualy work out some stable policy which both respects the right to carry and adresses public safety.

 

[Crimefree]

You really don't get it do you? Your reaction to the data I presented could have been predicted as accurately as the sun setting in the west tonight. Perhaps you are familiar with the adage of giving a person enough rope?

Of course I am aware of enough rope I have watched you swing from it many times. If predicting false information is going to elicit a rebuttal it is not prediction. You seem to make many such conceited predictions.

And you did just as expected which only proves I was correct both in my assessment of the intellectual dishonesty of the far right in demanding proof that gun laws reduce crime as well as the reaction of you and others when presented with any evidence which disagrees with your self imposed beliefs.

You presented no evidence you only made claims, unevidence claims. You were directed to refute the claims of the National Academy of Sciences research which claims that the extant of gun control research shows absolutely no benefit to gun control which you failed to do thus conceding your claim was false. Refuted, trashed, up in flames, sunk, lost, vaporised now BUZZ off with this claim and acknowledge any further claim on your part is BS, dishonest and intellectual fraud.

Exactly what is dishonest in demanding government account for the billions it spends on gun control without showing EVER the benefit GOVERNMENT claimed and proving to the people value for money? Why do you seek to hide this with false rhetoric and avoidance? If there is any dishonesty it is in government by withholding this information and you attempted justification thereof. Where is government proof these laws with do as claimed? Or were politicians and government lying again as usual when lobbying and voting? Don't they know?

Most excellent!

Thank you for your acknowledgement.

Well your standard has not changed. It's still down in the gutter.

 

[Crimefree]

Read your post. Saw nothing of the kind where you trashed anything. There was nothing that merited any rebuttal.

I think I demonstrated adequately the police have no use for registration since no use has yet been found and the police themselves admit they have no use for it. So that did not merit rebuttal from you and registration for the only reason of government control is fine with you. OK I think I understand now.

I can see why people make such claims about a party that wants stuff like this. It's a party of frightened gun banners.

 

[Jerry]

I think I demonstrated adequately the police have no use for registration since no use has yet been found and the police themselves admit they have no use for it. So that did not merit rebuttal from you and registration for the only reason of government control is fine with you. OK I think I understand now.

I can see why people make such claims about a party that wants stuff like this. It's a party of frightened gun banners.

They have to get guns out of the way inorder to pass the fiscal policies they want and reestablish the proletariat/bourgeois dynamic.

 

[Crimefree]

I participate in a couple pro-gun forums where the libtard controlers are run off, and the 'middle ground' I speak of here is comromise amung 2A supporters; pro-gun compromising with pro-gun, not pro-gun compromising with anti-gun. Loads of passionat pro-gunners fully support a buisness owner's right to post a sign and ban guns from their property if want, for example. Those pro-gun say it's within the owner's property rights to ban guns and it's within the carrier's right to take their buisness elsewhere.

There's also significant support for some level of manditory training within pro-gun. This ranges from inserting a manditory gun class in highschool to classes for carry permits, but the support is there.

I personaly support a safe storage law, but I understand that not everyone can afford a Browning safe (myself included) and so I think trigger locks are a fair compromise.

Once we stamp out anti-gun we can actualy work out some stable policy which both respects the right to carry and adresses public safety.

Some people have a; I'm going to be brutal here collaborationist view of "middle" ground. Gun control is willing to contribute what to this silly organisations idea of middle ground? They are not negotiating anything but rights for the promise of "we will leave you alone". What is gun control going to contribute? When you negotiate with what you already have you can only lose

Some people just don't think.

Middle ground is public safety and nothing else.

There is no compromise on public safety becasue any compromise will endanger public safety. Gun control has no choice but to discuss public safety if we force that as the major issue and never fall back to saving guns, selling guns or pretending to be good boys and girls in the hopes of a sympathy vote.

1 make gun control suck on proving guns cause anything
2 take away the idiotic gun crime
3 take back what has been given away in public support
4 this fight cannot be won without public support.

 

[Jerry]

When you negotiate with what you already have you can only lose

I think I've said twice slready, that any such 'negotiation' occures only after the bans on machienguns and carry in schools are repealed.

Until then, there's nothing to negotiate.

 

[haymarket]

And we know what your opinion is worth and how blind you are to anything you don't like or cannot answer

And you again failed to step to the plate and deliver what you claim you can. Instead you merely engage in attack.

I think I demonstrated adequately the police have no use for registration since no use has yet been found and the police themselves admit they have no use for it.

Since we have no nation wide system of registration for firearms, how does anyone know if it is useful or not?

In Canada In a Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) survey, 74% of general duty police officers stated that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations." That pretty much destroys your claim that police have no use for registration.

And you say you "demonstrated" this but where is it?

Where is your factual refutation of what I presented yesterday in 327? You rejected the findings for the very reason that I said you reject all firearms information like this and it proves the intellectual fraud in asking for the data in the first place.

http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/background-checks-reduce-crimes-and-save-lives.pdf

WOMEN MURDERED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS
In states that require a background check for private handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners.


SUICIDE
In states that require a background check for private handgun sales, there are 49 percent fewer firearm suicides, while the rates of suicide by other methods are nearly identical.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS WITH FIREARMS
In states that require background checks for all handgun sales, there are 17% fewer firearm aggravated assaults.

POLICE KILLED WITH HANDGUNS
In states that require background checks for private handgun sales, 39 percent fewer law enforcement are shot to death with handguns.

CRIME GUNS TRAFFICKED TO OTHER STATES
States that require a background check for private handgun sales ‘exported’ 64 percent fewer crime guns — guns originally sold in-state that were later recovered at crime scenes in other states.

YOu kep demanding proof that gun laws do some good - well there it is.

 

[Crimefree]

I think I've said twice slready, that any such 'negotiation' occures only after the bans on machienguns and carry in schools are repealed.

Until then, there's nothing to negotiate.

And I heard you the first time and now the second because you have not stated what you are going to negotiate with and all we have is our rights.

Now let me say this about a few laws you think important and they are but once the repeal of those is achieved what then?

Now the hardest question to answer how are you going to organise opposition to those laws sufficient to remove them. What is going to be your motivation, that is going to get people off their bum? Let's be honest here firearm organisations have never done this before in any serious manner. Removing a law is going to take massive public objection and gun control as well as government will be working to oppose it all the way.

And thirdly once you have reached your objective the movement falls apart. Now what?

Best you take a long hard look at gun control and see how professionals organise to win. I can answer every one of these questions when it comes to gun control. I cannot answer one of them for firearm owners.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lets tear a crater in this

1 Who cares.



2 Your knowledge is abysmal. The self loading cartridge was available as well as the gattling gun giving in its time an absolute command of any army that had one. It was the most fearful weapon ever seen and yet.... Your argument is scurrilous at best and a regurgitation of gun control rhetoric at worst. Learn to think for yourself and do a bit of research.



3 I'm pretty sure you mean something by this statement but since I do not have your fears I fail to see any significance or importance.

a) "criminal" is a person who has committed a crime and not not paid the debt to society.
b) incarcerated
c) nobody can read minds or predict the future.
d) punishing somebody before they MAY do something is OPPRESSIVE.

A released "criminal" has paid that debt and all rights must be restored.

Are you suggesting every released criminal must be further punished? On what grounds is this punishment? I don't like the way your mind thinks.



4 How do they save lives? Are police at the coal face of crime like citizens are or do they simply record and investigate crime? Will there be a policeman present at every murder in your convoluted and imaginative thinking?

You are not making any coherent arguments for gun control.

actually the Puckle gun was available then but not metallic cartridge firearms nor the gatling gun which was more than half a century later. that being said it takes little imagination to conceive of a firearm that could shoot faster than the 9 rounds a minute the Puckle gun was capable of

 

[TurtleDude]

And you again failed to step to the plate and deliver what you claim you can. Instead you merely engage in attack.



Since we have no nation wide system of registration for firearms, how does anyone know if it is useful or not?

In Canada In a Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) survey, 74% of general duty police officers stated that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations." That pretty much destroys your claim that police have no use for registration.

And you say you "demonstrated" this but where is it?

Where is your factual refutation of what I presented yesterday in 327? You rejected the findings for the very reason that I said you reject all firearms information like this and it proves the intellectual fraud in asking for the data in the first place.

http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/background-checks-reduce-crimes-and-save-lives.pdf



YOu kep demanding proof that gun laws do some good - well there it is.

74% of government employees who are beholden to higher ranking government employees praise a controversial money wasting government system? Next thing you will tell is that Obama is doing a good job because most democrat party employees are saying Obama is doing a good job.

"helping them with their duties" which includes harassing people who don't register guns is not the same thing as decreasing crime. presuming say traffic offenders guilty would help police do "their duties" but I would argue wouldn't make our streets safer and that is what matters, not the convenience of government employees

that study you cited is hilarious given that the 21 years of the Brady bill could find no such benefits

 

[Declan]

The second amendment should be repealed.

 

[TurtleDude]

The second amendment should be repealed.

that still would not help you hard core gun banners. YOu'd also have to pass yet another amendment actually giving the federal government the legitimate power to ban guns. and I would suggest if that happens, lots of gun banners are going to be real unhappy at the backlash. Ultimately I believe gun owners would resist, most cops wouldn't be part of it and then the hard core gun banners would be targeted for reprisal which after all is the purpose of the second amendment: an armed citizenry is a freer citizenry than a disarmed one

I note that almost every gun banner we come across on this board are communist, progressive or socialists. I guess it proves that such groups are both in league with criminals and don't want armed resistance to their collectivist goals.

 

[haymarket]

74% of government employees who are beholden to higher ranking government employees praise a controversial money wasting government system?

The very people who have to use the system praise the system and find it useful. Perhaps you would prefer the opinion of people outside the system who have nothing to do with it..... providing of course they agree with you?

that study you cited is hilarious given that the 21 years of the Brady bill could find no such benefits

That is not a valid criticism not does it in any way negate the data presented. If you have issue with the data, please present it. To assert that one person doing a study did not find the data that others did and thus negates the findings is engaging in a fallacy.

 

[American]

what evidence do you have that any of the anti gun schemes you support will be more effective in deterring criminals than they will be in harassing lawful gun owners?

None.

 

[TurtleDude]

The very people who have to use the system praise the system and find it useful. Perhaps you would prefer the opinion of people outside the system who have nothing to do with it..... providing of course they agree with you?

the issue is what is best for the country, not what is best for government bureaucrats who are beholden to the politicians who foisted that expensive idiocy on the public and want their lackeys to make that failure look better

you know-putting lipstick on a pig or more appropriately, trying to polish an expensive turd and claiming its a diamond