Lets Get Rid of The Anti-Gun Argument Before It Even Starts. RE: Congressman Shot 6/14/17

a reply to: FauxMulder

I am so glad you posted this thread....When will people learn you do not take a cell phone to a gun fight ?

“The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and if we didn’t have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us,”

a reply to: FauxMulder

My point is, it is already easy for them. They can steal, buy on the black market, etc.

True, but making it easier for those with criminal convictions or known mental health issues to legally purchase them, make it even easier.

Imposing tougher restrictions on law abiding criticizes really does not affect them.

Background checks aren't necessarily tougher restrictions. You agreed when I said this:

To lawfully carry, and through the proper channels and with the proper checks, yes.

Proper channels and proper checks. Those aren't "restrictions," they're just preventative measures making it less easy for those who might shouldn't have firearms from acquiring them.

That's not a bad thing, and doesn't restrict law abiding citizens' access to firearms.

And as mentioned, Virginia is an open carry state.

a reply to: Liquesence

Have you ever bought a gun before? We already have background checks.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 230 million such checks have been made, leading to more than 1.3 million denials.

a reply to: FauxMulder

We already have background checks.

I know, but if people with criminal histories and mental health issues can still buy them with ease, we need changes to prevent that.

That's why we need to make it less easy for those people to legally purchase them.

a reply to: intrptr
You can! What part of "...shall not be infringed". Eludes you? What "public"? Aren't you part of the "public"?

a reply to: Liquesence
How do we know you don't have "mental health" issues? Your on here practicing your 1st. Amendment right, with no "background check ". That's pretty scarry to me! I need a "safe space". You seem to be assaulting my disagreeable "belief"! Kind of scary!

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Liquesence
How do we know you don't have "mental health" issues? Your on here practicing your 1st. Amendment right, with no "background check ". That's pretty scarry to me! I need a "safe space". You seem to be assaulting my disagreeable "belief"! Kind of scary!

What does the first amendment have anything to do with a background check? And what does the first amendment have to do with a second amendment right? Additionally, ATS is not a public forum, so there's no first amendment right or guarantee.

You need a safe space? You feel my posts "assault" you?

***(you're, not your) clever guy

Nice try.

a reply to: Liquesence
By your reply, I can tell you got the jist of what I was saying/asking. If it didn't make sense? You should've known enough not to have replied.... Clever you, nice try. And you still didn't answer any questions. So if we're going to do "background checks" on one "right". Shouldn't we have "checks" on all "rights"? Which "right" is more valuable or dangerous? Again I ask, are you mentally ill? And are you "qualified" to self-diagnose? I feel you need a "background check". You may exercise your "rights" okay now. But who knows?!!? You could be a nut job tomorrow! Kind of scary to me! Makes me want to learn how to defend myself and "freedoms". ...LOL!

Goerge Washington's orders to the Army were "hate speach". "The Declaration of Independence" was "hate speach". Guess what? The British tried to do a "backround check"...didn't work. Try being right and not wrong. Life will be easier for you.

More law abiding people need to conceal carry.

What if the bleachers were filled with people and four or five of these Marxist fools decided to shoot up the families of these congressmen?

There should always be people like me or some of my friends in those bleachers....always.


Guard your 2A as if it were gold.

a reply to: queenofswords
+1!

I think gun control is a non argument in the sense of:

- if we have guns they have guns
- if we don't have guns they don't have guns

in both scenarios people are still able to kill each other. So yes you will reduce gun related violence but is that a direct correlation to reducing violence?

I guess people using pipe bombs is better?
or knives?
or poisoning/drugging?
or infectious diseases?
or acid?
or a car?
or a rock?
....

if someone wants to cause you harm they are going to do it one way or another. Reduce the amount of weapons as much as you want it doesn't stop people wanting to kill. Guns are not the root of this problem. Unhappy, uninformed, and people with nothing to lose are the root of the problem.

So I'm sure the next argument will be: "less people will die"

That's very possible but it doesn't make your situation any better. A dead man/woman is cheaper then an injured. So yes more people will be alive but now they have to live with potential life long consequences of injuries. Also the attacker will also live, increasing the strain on an already overburden jail system.

You just exchange one problem for another.

The focus should be bringing the common welfare and education of the people up. This is a better way to reduce violence.

Destroy fearmongering and misinformation. This is a better way to reduce violence

Fighting to regulate guns just makes the NRA richer. So if you don't like guns you need to change your tactics.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: FauxMulder

We already have background checks.

I know, but if people with criminal histories and mental health issues can still buy them with ease, we need changes to prevent that.

That's why we need to make it less easy for those people to legally purchase them.

there are laws in place to make that not happen. If those laws are not being followed, they need to be upheld, But before we make new laws, be sure the existing one's are being enforced correctly.

a reply to: DiaJax
The only reason left thinking minds see a gun as a "threat", is because they have been "educated/indoctrinated" to believe a gun means "power". They're simple like that. The normal/sane person sees it for what it is, a tool a machine. By the lefts thinking and spouted nonsense, everone should be eating with a plastic spork or their fingers. The funny thing is, and always makes me smile, that both those are just as deadly.... Shhh! Don't tell e'm. They'll want "backround checks" for KFC.

a reply to: Liquesence
That all depends on who's running the show. Who's "law" are the "citizens" abiding by? I hear this "law abiding " stuff all the time. Then I remember that The U.S.A. wasn't founded on or by, the exactly "law abiding ". Then I realize the government thinks they give out "rights". Lord! How things have changed in the last couple hundred years.

OP. You can't get rid of ignorance. Libs are fearful creatures by nature. It is well documented by their own "intelligence gathering" that inanimate objects scare the living hell out of them. They need to know, they have "security". Which is not something they're willing to die for. But, more than willing for others to do it for them. They're mentally ill. Threads like this only gives their illness a reason for being. They should be ignored. That would be the best treatment. Help them escape their mom's mental basement and apron. Give them righteous disregard. Their "reasonable" argument/arguments is of no issue to the sane. They need more help than what can be given here.

a reply to: 727Sky
Well whomever said this, needs to rethink his manhood. Because they pretty much said, "I'm a coward". Basically they're saying, "somebody risked their neck, so I could run for safety "! I hope they learn from this embarrassing incident and learn to "bear arms".

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: intrptr
You can! What part of "...shall not be infringed". Eludes you? What "public"? Aren't you part of the "public"?

You just come tony state and try and open carry...

The whole idea that murderers would follow gun laws is an instant insight into the minds of those who want gun control. They are pathetically stupid.