Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

originally posted by: matafuchs

It is very interesting if you would like to listen to how your government wants to take away your guns.

In other words, gun sales are down and the gun manufactures that spent millions on bribes are complaining. Time for a gun ban threat so they can sell a few million more guns and boost their profits.

I am fine with hunting rifles.. with handguns to protect yourself.. whatever. But I don't know why anything thinks we need high powered automatic rifles that can unload 30 rounds in a few seconds. I have never seen a serious proposal that recommends removing all weapons. I do see proposals to remove high powered weapons. Fine.. imo.

Let's think ahead. Say.. 30.. 50 years. Now we have kinetic or laser weapons able to kill dozens of people in seconds. No curtail? Go full bore? At what point will it make sense to limit personal guns to a level that doesn't endanger masses of people if an unstable person gets a hold of one. When the laws so many people preach and quote were written, there was nothing available like there is today. If there were.. perhaps they would have written those laws differently.

women, blacks, gays, transgender

this is the pattern of people seeking rights, a few trading places here and there.

The pattern is the same with firearms. Recently, relative to the last century, there has been a surge in the number of women who take up recreational shooting. The number of firearms marketed to females is quite high. As for blacks, several youtube gun advocates are African American. There's the pink pistols and the #shootback movement.

Guns are simply tools. They can be used to protect, or to attack, to hunt, or to entertain. The love of firearms surpasses the love of doing harm with firearms. Many are ornate, some cost tens of thousands of dollars. Several are like paper doll avatars, dressed up and changed in appearance to personalize, accessorize, and add personality. But what they are primarily used for, is shooting cartoon characters of clowns, zombies, and maniacs on paper. They are fired at 2 liters of soft drinks, at pumpkins, and watermelons. They are used to fry bacon, submerged in jello, and fired to the point of failure at no particular person at all.

You can kill a bear with your automobile. But the key differences between an automobile and a gun, are that a gun doesn't suffer damage when it kills the bear, it is lighter, easier to carry, and costs a whole lot less. But it won't keep you dry or get you home faster, and it probably doesn't have a stereo, even if it does have headlights.

Right now, is the time for marginalized people to embrace guns, to normalize them, rather than letting them fall to the war of fetish and fear. In almost all cases, whenever a gun was used in a mass shooting, either by homicide, suicide, or suicide by police - it was another gun that ended it. Unless you are really good with dynamite, it is really hard to put out a fire with more fire. The same is not true of firearms.

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: SudoNim

My god some of the paranoid delusional comments in here.

ISIS wins if you don't have a gun to protect yourself. HAHAHAHA.

Reality check, your gun isn't protecting anything. You having a gun isn't stopping mass shootings, it isn't stopping terrorist attacks, the same laws/rights that are ludicrously allowing such a free flow of murder weapons throughout America is actually aiding mass shootings and aiding terrorist attacks.

The only thing owning a gun is doing is massaging your own ego.
Owning a gun puts your family at more risk of gun related death than if you didn't own a gun. Fact.

Keep ignoring this because you want to feel like a bigger man by arming yourself. You aren't protecting sh1t but your ego.

There are a tons of people who have used a gun to defend themselves against criminals. If you dont want one that's cool go ahead and try to use harsh words when a bad guy breaks into your house. "get away you bad man" sure that will work out well for you.

You do realise that in the case of home invasion the chances of you being shot are less than 1%.... UNLESS you have a gun.

Guess not. It doesn't fit your argument... sure buddy your much safer with that gun.

When a bad guy breaks into your house and you go to grab your gun you think they'll go "Sorry mate, i'll leave instead" or will they just shoot you first?

a reply to: SudoNim

You do realise that in the case of home invasion the chances of you being shot are less than 1%.... UNLESS you have a gun.

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you in some ways.

I grew up with guns. I was taught to shoot by my father. My training started when I was strong enough to hold a gun steady, and could be trusted to follow instructions. I believe that gun ownership is a decision that should be made by the law abiding American citizens, not by the government.

I gave up my guns a long time ago now, for a whole variety of reasons. As far as a home invasion is concerned, if they have come to take your stuff, then they don't want you around getting in their way, and taking up their time. I honestly have nothing in my home that is worth my life, or the life of another. I have been robbed before, and I either replaced what was taken, or decided I didn't need or want the item stolen, so I didn't replace it. I felt violated. I was angry. I never had the desire to kill the person that took my stuff, but I did want him/her caught and punished.

I can only think of a few reasons why a person would wait for the owners to be at home to steal their possessions. They either sick and demented and wish to do the people in the home injury, or they wish to kill them.

In a home invasion robbery, even with the poor statistics, I would want to take my chances with having a gun, over not having one.

Over 2 million homes will experience a home invasion at some point in time in the United States. That means 20% of Americans will become a victim of this crime.

And not trying to be a wise ass, but 1% can factor into a whole lot of dead people. Out of the 20% of Americans, most don't want to be one of the twenty thousand.

No one is taking away your guns. Easy Jethro. Dems just want this stop apologizing to victims and start doing what they are paid to do. Keeping guns out of the hands of people on the no fly list is a no brainier. Expanding background checks to make sure only law abiding citizens can get there much needed assault rifle seems pretty acceptable. It's not the slippery slope that everyone thinks they see...it's a much needed conversation to make sure I can walk my kids into a movie theatre without some asshole shooting up the place.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
In a home invasion robbery, even with the poor statistics, I would want to take my chances with having a gun, over not having one.

Over 2 million homes will experience a home invasion at some point in time in the United States. That means 20% of Americans will become a victim of this crime.

And not trying to be a wise ass, but 1% can factor into a whole lot of dead people. Out of the 20% of Americans, most don't want to be one of the twenty thousand.

That 1% was without a gun. If you have a gun during a home invasion the chances of a member of YOUR family being killed are much much higher.
So is it really worth risking your life and your families to stop a robbery?

Would you risk your families health to shoot someone who is unlikely to try and cause you harm?

It's simple statistics, your family is safer without a gun. Bottom line.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The fifth and the fourth...CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

and the fourth amendment prevents the govt. from search and seizure without a warrant based on a sworn affidavit.

So the mere fact that the TSA exists and searches EVERY traveler is a violation of every person's rights...and before you argue that the airline is a private institution, you are right and if the airline chose to implement the security procedures, then they could legally require you to go through the screening, but they don't, it's a govt. mandate and since the govt is restricted from violating our right to be secure in our persons and effects without a warrant, it is ILLEGAL...

Jaden

a reply to: SudoNim

The point is that you are curling into a ball and putting your family's lives at the whim of someone who's already proven to be willing to threaten you with a weapon, break into your house and take what doesn't belong to them.

I won't do that... EVER.

Jaden

a reply to: ScoobyWho

No it's not. There is no control over who gets put onto the no fly list. No requirements must be met, it is at the whim of the govt. The second amendment is there for ONE reason, to ensure the people will not be deprived the right to defend themselves from an overreaching govt. Allowing the govt to usurp the authority to determine who will and will not be able to exercise that right essentially negates the WHOLE purpose of it.

Jaden

a reply to: fleabit

There's plenty of reason. You and others don't get to decide what other people need. lol

The reasons are actually self evident. It's not for hunting deer and neither is the second amendment. Although I'd love to see someone take down a deer with a 9mm...lol

Jaden

a reply to: fleabit

Are you gonna take away instant ice packs too? I'm serious. You can kill MANY more people with instant ice packs than ANY firearm...

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

No, you'd rather put your family at risk than protect them.

I know you think your coming off as brave and passionate but YOU are the biggest threat to your families life with that attitude.

Keep living in denial and putting your own ego over your family.

a reply to: SudoNim

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
wkrg.com...
www.nraila.org...
www.foxnews.com...
www.ajc.com...
www.wxyz.com...
wishtv.com...
www.indystar.com...
www.nraila.org...
www.nraila.org...
www.nraila.org...
www.wtoc.com...
www.enterprisenews.com...
www.seattletimes.com...
abc7ny.com...
www.wyff4.com...
wvmetronews.com...
ktla.com...
www.wbbjtv.com...
www.daytondailynews.com...
www.news-leader.com...


You want some more?????

How about stop going to the liars at Mother Jones for info.

a reply to: macman

Well, for someone with a warmonger and 'molon labe' as a profile pic, it's not surprising your head is in the sand regarding the sick state of affairs your country is in, and the fact that it leads the world in gun violence.

Shame on you.

1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like

That's pretty damning evidence, but yeah, you're fine with that, obviously, because guns aren't a problem.

What does gun violence really cost?

Yeah, such a horrible article from 'Mother Jones'. In fact, it's sickening. Keep your head in the sand, fella. Primitive, warmongering, selfish policies will take your sick country down further than it is already.

Well some changes failed the Senate today ....

A look at the 4 gun bills up for vote in Senate

The proposals scheduled for a vote Monday — all as amendments to a Justice Department spending bill — include:

* An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list.
Failed

* An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale.
Failed

* An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.
Failed

* An amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, and to expand the background check database.
Failed

I just had a thought occur to me. You might want to mull it over to try to flesh out the mental gymnastics.

Most of those harping on the 2nd amendment as being next to Godliness are the same folks bitching about who should and should not be able to have children, and are for strict criteria to be met before permitting procreating.

Yet, anyone & everyone should have access to projectile weapons, all restrictions & any criteria are anti-American. Regulating the use of sperm & ovum are ok, but not guns.

Try as I might, that amount of logic contorting just does not compute. How do these folks brush their teeth & manage to not drown themselves?

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: SudoNim

My god some of the paranoid delusional comments in here.

ISIS wins if you don't have a gun to protect yourself. HAHAHAHA.

Reality check, your gun isn't protecting anything. You having a gun isn't stopping mass shootings, it isn't stopping terrorist attacks, the same laws/rights that are ludicrously allowing such a free flow of murder weapons throughout America is actually aiding mass shootings and aiding terrorist attacks.

The only thing owning a gun is doing is massaging your own ego.
Owning a gun puts your family at more risk of gun related death than if you didn't own a gun. Fact.

Keep ignoring this because you want to feel like a bigger man by arming yourself. You aren't protecting sh1t but your ego.

There are a tons of people who have used a gun to defend themselves against criminals. If you dont want one that's cool go ahead and try to use harsh words when a bad guy breaks into your house. "get away you bad man" sure that will work out well for you.

You do realise that in the case of home invasion the chances of you being shot are less than 1%.... UNLESS you have a gun.

Guess not. It doesn't fit your argument... sure buddy your much safer with that gun.

When a bad guy breaks into your house and you go to grab your gun you think they'll go "Sorry mate, i'll leave instead" or will they just shoot you first?

Hey go ahead and try dirty words my friend. Why one would even knowingly put their fate in the hands of a criminal as opposed to using means to defend oneself is beyond me. BTW where are you getting that stat from about likelihood of being shot in a home invasion being 1%?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: SudoNim

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
wkrg.com...
www.nraila.org...
www.foxnews.com...
www.ajc.com...
www.wxyz.com...
wishtv.com...
www.indystar.com...
www.nraila.org...
www.nraila.org...
www.nraila.org...
www.wtoc.com...
www.enterprisenews.com...
www.seattletimes.com...
abc7ny.com...
www.wyff4.com...
wvmetronews.com...
ktla.com...
www.wbbjtv.com...
www.daytondailynews.com...
www.news-leader.com...


You want some more?????

How about stop going to the liars at Mother Jones for info.

*looks at your sources* ok buddy.

a reply to: sirlancelot

How exactly are you defending yourself? I don't know how you are failing to grasp this concept. Its really simple.

Let me see if I can put it in easier terms for you to understand.

For every 1 criminal killed by a gun owner to prevent a crime, 2 people die accidentally from gun use.

You are far more likely to shoot your own child than a criminal. Your family needs protecting from YOU.