Why is the average firearm owner, an unsafe gun owner?

[RF667799]

I bolded what I responded to.
Can’t seem to get any gun control folks to support that though.
Evidence the bolded, or not and prove it's a lie.

Since you obviously are aware of how many gun control folks he has talked to and what their response was to his proposal, just go ahead and name the exception that proves his statement as a lie.

You really are self centered.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, that's definitely not true.

I say this as a gun owner.

I'm not terrified of an object that can't harm me.

And I'm also not simping for authoritarianism.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Amazingly, all inanimate objects stay where you put them. Really a dumbass argument.

hey, I'm not the one arguing inanimate objects assault people or commit violence against people

that's your anti-gun buddies

there is no gun violence
there is no assault rifles

there are people who commit violence using guns and people who commit assaults using guns - the PEOPLE are the problem

 

[poppopfox]

hey, I'm not the one arguing inanimate objects assault people or commit violence against people

You're the one posing an unintelligent semantic claim.

that's your anti-gun buddies

Projecting and labeling are just as dumb when used in a discussion.

there is no gun violence
there is no assault rifles

Broken record.

there are people who commit violence using guns and people who commit assaults using guns - the PEOPLE are the problem

Get back to us when you figure out how to alter the human genome. Until then, those people you mention should not have access to firearms.

 

[poppopfox]

Says the self admitted prohibited person who bragged about his Chinese battle rifle modified for high capacity magazines.

Is that all you got? Post the quote where I bragged about owning a war souvenier that's been locked away for at least a decade.

And I see that you could not argue my point. So, surrender accepted.

You don't post arguable points, just standard gunnutter bloviation with a narcissistic need to win, like this is a game. Petty if you ask me (and still petty if you don't).

 

[hecatmoggie]

You're the one posing an unintelligent semantic claim.

Projecting and labeling are just as dumb when used in a discussion.

Broken record.

Get back to us when you figure out how to alter the human genome. Until then, those people you mention should not have access to firearms.

truth is truth, fact is fact

would you agree to this - really put the whammy on violent people. Deal ?

mandatory death penalty for anyone using a gun in a violent crime
steal a gun, mandatory life in prison

 

[rahl]

No, that's definitely not true.

I say this as a gun owner.

Well, they aren’t.

 

[SoCal]

In the 70s were when semiautomatic handguns were exotic, rare items?

I don't believe your NRA instructor stories.

tshade is correct, the NRA was all about training and gun safety.

It's somewhat akin to the Repub party, that was all about free trade, national defense and some principles, now just like the Repub party, they've been taken over by MAWA extremists, gun nuts and lobbyists...

 

[RF667799]

tshade is correct, the NRA was all about training and gun safety.

It's somewhat akin to the Repub party, that was all about free trade, national defense and some principles, now just like the Repub party, they've been taken over by MAWA extremists, gun nuts and lobbyists...

Semiautomatic handguns were not rare and exotic in the 70s.

And his implied claim that lawsuits aren't allowed to be brought against irresponsible gun owners is bullshit.

 

[ataraxia]

Semiautomatic handguns were not rare and exotic in the 70s.

And his implied claim that lawsuits aren't allowed to be brought against irresponsible gun owners is bullshit.

What emerged in the 1970s was not your father’s NRA. It was not some conserving of the founding father’s vision of freedom, or “original intent” of the 2A. It was a radical new extremist group.

Just to get a feel for how radical they have become, let’s look at where they stood before the 1970s:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
-Karl T. Frederick, president of the NRA, 1939

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

The organization changed its stance in the 1970s

time.com

 

[ataraxia]

hey, I'm not the one arguing inanimate objects assault people or commit violence against people

that's your anti-gun buddies

there is no gun violence
there is no assault rifles

there are people who commit violence using guns and people who commit assaults using guns - the PEOPLE are the problem

I have never seen nuclear ordnances grow legs and walk around killing people either. Why don’t we left the infringements on nuclear arms and just put them on sale at Walmart and then arrest people only if they break the law?

Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. Right?

 

[CLAX1911]

What emerged in the 1970s was not your father’s NRA. It was not some conserving of the founding father’s vision of freedom, or “original intent” of the 2A. It was a radical new extremist group.

Good. Extremists when it comes to freedom are the best.

Just to get a feel for how radical they have become, let’s look at where they stood before the 1970s:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
-Karl T. Frederick, president of the NRA, 1939

Did this guy doesn't know what the second amendment needs what it says the right to keep and bear arms. To bear arms beats to carry them so maybe you're confused about the second amendment.

I'm glad it moved away from that if it radicalized to be more in line with what the Constitution says that's a good thing.

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

The organization changed its stance in the 1970s

time.com

 

[ataraxia]

Good. Extremists when it comes to freedom are the best.

Did this guy doesn't know what the second amendment needs what it says the right to keep and bear arms. To bear arms beats to carry them so maybe you're confused about the second amendment.

I'm glad it moved away from that if it radicalized to be more in line with what the Constitution says that's a good thing.

What has made it radical is trying to apply 18th century laws to 21st century technology. Are you saying the second amendment gives you the freedom to nuclear arms as well?

Technology has made the second amendment ridiculously obsolete. I don’t think anyone would be having this conversation if the major arms available was still a front loading musket.

 

[CLAX1911]

What has made it radical is trying to apply 18th century laws to 21st century technology.

Why should the Lord out of light to the technology?

Should police be able to search your phone without a warrant because that technology didn't exist when the 4th amendment was written?

Should people be arrested for making commentary online because that technology didn't exist for the first amendment was written

Are you saying the second amendment gives you the freedom to nuclear arms as well?

Is there a law against owning nuclear weapons?

Technology has made the second amendment ridiculously obsolete.

The fact that you say this means the second amendment is more important than ever.

You think because gods are more effective now that they should be limited because you were never meant to have effective firearms?

I don’t think anyone would be having this conversation if the major arms available was still a front loading musket.

Why is the second amendment the only amendment that's anachronistic?

You think a police officer should have a warrant to search a car cars that exist when the 4th amendment was written.

Should you have your fifth amendment right not to incriminate your partner if they're the same sex as you because same sex marriage didn't exist with the fifth amendment was written.

Your logic that the amendments only apply to things that existed in the time when they were written is profoundly idiotic.

 

[CLAX1911]

I have never seen nuclear ordnances grow legs and walk around killing people either.

Is it illegal to own those?

Why don’t we left the infringements on nuclear arms and just put them on sale at Walmart and then arrest people only if they break the law?

I don't think Walmart would sell it.

Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. Right?

Right they just sit in their silos until they're launched.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I have never seen nuclear ordnances grow legs and walk around killing people either. Why don’t we left the infringements on nuclear arms and just put them on sale at Walmart and then arrest people only if they break the law?

Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. Right?

yes because nuclear weapons is just like a rifle I use to hunt with - a perfect comparison


I mean seriously ?

 

[JMB1911A1]

tshade is correct, the NRA was all about training and gun safety.

It's somewhat akin to the Repub party, that was all about free trade, national defense and some principles, now just like the Repub party, they've been taken over by MAWA extremists, gun nuts and lobbyists...

The NRA is still the gold standard of firearms training. I am still waiting for any of Michael Bloomberg’s “gun safety” groups to provide an actual gun safety course.

The closest that the gun control groups have come to safety is stealing gun licks from the NSSF and trying to rebrand them as their own.

Bloomberg-Backed Gun Control Swipes Project ChildSafe Kits to Pass Off as Their Own

The Bloomberg-backed group Be Smart was seen stapling their own cards to what are clearly Project ChildSafe-branded locks.

www.nssf.org

 

[CLAX1911]

The NRA is still the gold standard of firearms training. I am still waiting for any of Michael Bloomberg’s “gun safety” groups to provide an actual gun safety course.

The closest that the gun control groups have come to safety is stealing gun licks from the NSSF and trying to rebrand them as their own.

Bloomberg-Backed Gun Control Swipes Project ChildSafe Kits to Pass Off as Their Own

The Bloomberg-backed group Be Smart was seen stapling their own cards to what are clearly Project ChildSafe-branded locks.

www.nssf.org

Yep that's where I learned it from maybe the issue is there's not a big need to revise the safety rules for handling guns

 

[JMB1911A1]

What has made it radical is trying to apply 18th century laws to 21st century technology. Are you saying the second amendment gives you the freedom to nuclear arms as well?

Technology has made the second amendment ridiculously obsolete. I don’t think anyone would be having this conversation if the major arms available was still a front loading musket.

Now do the first amendment. You really don’t need that freedom, do you?

 

[ataraxia]

Now do the first amendment. You really don’t need that freedom, do you?

No, of course, not. That would be pretty ridiculous.

https://connectsafely.org/how-tech-impacts-both-the-1st-and-2nd-ammendments/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030859619390022U#:~:text=rights%20and%20content-,Abstract,offered%20by%20the%20new%20technologies.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, of course, not. That would be pretty ridiculous.

https://connectsafely.org/how-tech-impacts-both-the-1st-and-2nd-ammendments/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030859619390022U#:~:text=rights%20and%20content-,Abstract,offered%20by%20the%20new%20technologies.

So why can a person who's married to a same sex partner lead the fifth to avoided criminating their partner seeing sex marriage to exist for the subject was written why do you pick and choose which ones are anachronistic

 

[jaeger19]

What emerged in the 1970s was not your father’s NRA. It was not some conserving of the founding father’s vision of freedom, or “original intent” of the 2A. It was a radical new extremist group.

Just to get a feel for how radical they have become, let’s look at where they stood before the 1970s:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
-Karl T. Frederick, president of the NRA, 1939

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

The organization changed its stance in the 1970s

time.com

Here is the irony.
The split that came about in the 1970s was the result of a number of gun control measures that were aimed at disarming and preventing black people from owning and carrying firearms. ( a reaction to the civil rights movement)
The “ old guard” of the nra supported or at least tolerated these racist gun laws as they did not fear that these laws would affect WHITE MALE gun owners.
The “ radicals “ as you call them did not think that the rights to own firearms should be infringed regardless of your skin color.
Thats why the nra started up a stronger lobbying wing to fight against racist gun laws.

Gun control laws are a form of institutional racism. It’s not a coincidence that areas in the country that have high minority populations often have the highest gun control laws.

Think about stop and frisk? What law is the basis for stop and frisk ? A law against carrying firearms without a license.

 

[jaeger19]

I have never seen nuclear ordnances grow legs and walk around killing people either. Why don’t we left the infringements on nuclear arms and just put them on sale at Walmart and then arrest people only if they break the law?

Nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. Right?

Actually if left unattended nuclear weapons can kill people as they eventually can degrade and become unsafe. In addition there radiation needs to be constantly shielded .

Not so with firearms.

 

[SoCal]

Semiautomatic handguns were not rare and exotic in the 70s.

And his implied claim that lawsuits aren't allowed to be brought against irresponsible gun owners is bullshit.

You have issues with his posts, reply to him, not me. Good dodge, ignoring that facts I posted and what he was right about...

 

[CLAX1911]

You have issues with his posts, reply to him, not me. Good dodge, ignoring that facts I posted and what he was right about...

A lot of things changed in the mid '60s to light 70s regarding attitudes towards guns. I've spoken to a lot of baby boomers that remember taking their guns to school with them. Sometimes they took shooting classes at school it wasn't unusual.

I think what changed this is all of the national attention given to the UT Tower shooting event.