The Right of the People to Own Weapons Cant be Expunged From The Debate.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is VERY (like I can't emphasize this word enough) poor reasoning. First off, who would take a rifle into a concert?

You are one of the hand wringers, conditioned by decades of anti gun propaganda, deflecting from the person that committed this heinous crime to the inanimate object.

Nice ad hominem to deflect that giant post I made of careful and thoughtful analysis. Clearly you have no counter argument to what I was saying if you are going to try this cheap cop out.

If someone uses a vehicle to run down and mass murder a bunch of people do we focus on the car, the truck, the manufacturer?

Try not to defect to evil things, anymore.

Be honest. You didn't read a word of what I wrote.

You are quite correct here. Unless a very experienced person on the ground had a very accurate high powered rifle, firing back at someone over 30 stories high (into an occupied hotel) could cause a lot of collateral damage. That high powered round would go through walls.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nice ad hominem to deflect that giant post I made of careful and thoughtful analysis. Clearly you have no counter argument to what I was saying if you are going to try this cheap cop out.

'Cheap cop out' is blaming crime on inanimate objects instead of criminals.

Sorry I don't need to fill a page with deflection to say it.

a reply to: intrptr

I didn't blame crime on a gun. My ENTIRE argument was that saying the concertgoers should have been armed was a dumb argument. You added that whole "blaming crime on inanimate objects instead of criminals" part to the conservation. That's called a strawman. Another cheap cop out. Can't refute what someone is saying? Make up your own argument, attribute it to them then attack that.

Seriously. Pull your head out of your ass and go reread what I typed more carefully this time.

originally posted by: infolurker
You are quite correct here. Unless a very experienced person on the ground had a very accurate high powered rifle, firing back at someone over 30 stories high (into an occupied hotel) could cause a lot of collateral damage. That high powered round would go through walls.

Exactly. Admitting this isn't admitting that guns are a problem. It is just admitting to the reality of the situation that happened. There is no logical reason civilians should have been firing at the side of a hotel to return fire. Heck, the police didn't even identify where he was until an hour after the shooting started, and they had radio communication. I imagine that the panicking people at the concert had even less of a shot at identifying where the shooter was shooting from.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Seriously. Pull your head out of your ass and go reread what I typed more carefully this time.

When deflection isn't working, use personal insult.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Seriously. Pull your head out of your ass and go reread what I typed more carefully this time.

When deflection isn't working, use personal insult.

Hey pot, are you telling the kettle what color it is again?
"You are one of the hand wringers, conditioned by decades of anti gun propaganda,"
How about you cut the bickering and actually address my points before I start alerting the mods to your trolling?

Satire

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Phage

No, but the 'press' and ignorance of a frightened people go a long way in strengthening 'their' resolve.

Praying President Trump is strong and will not allow any remarkable or unremarkable issue to come from this... False flag.

peace

Explain how this is a false flag operation.

Who is pretending to be who? For what political gain?

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Phage

No, but the 'press' and ignorance of a frightened people go a long way in strengthening 'their' resolve.

Praying President Trump is strong and will not allow any remarkable or unremarkable issue to come from this... False flag.

peace

As They should people are being slaughtered in the street BY guns THAT are hoarded by a small percentage of the population. And when some one gets pissed off enough they are killing there neighbours.

Mass shooting are happening almost daily. Thats not NEWS? We shouldn't as a country should BE talking about this.

We have the right to discuss and implement policies. THATS the first admentment.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Phage

"Press"? Or "Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda"?

Our government uses the media as their Whip on the people.

That is so inaccurate that its funny.

ITS more correct to say the president use's twitter to distract the people.

BECAUSE trump literally say so little that is politically valid the press has little of substance to report They comment on the only thing they can. the drivel that Trump post on twitter.

a reply to: ausername

Actually that is exactly what the ALt right wants you to believe. all or nothing.

Why not require permit FOR all guns. Allow every body who has a gun legal or not to register it and allow amnesty.
Require news gun owner to register. If you are stop carrying your gun and you have your permit off you go. If theirs a shooting in your area you would be asked to allow your gun to be inspected. if your clean no problem.

Or any other good suggestion would work BUT its not black and white there are lots of reasonable options which the right wing NRA rejects.

We do not need to change the second amendment. Simple laws to reasonable improve gun safety are what is needed

a reply to: Phage

I hadn't thought of that! Thanks!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ausername
I've very recently discovered and concluded there is absolutely no middle ground in the gun debate in this country, it's either one extreme or the other. One way or the other, all or nothing, no compromise. Everything is a slippery slope leading to a total gun grab.

Like so many issues in government in this country, you have to be on one side or the other, otherwise you're irrelevant and insignificant noise no one will hear.

Is it reasonable to knowing sell guns to violent offenders ?

originally posted by: SmilingROB
a reply to: ausername

Actually that is exactly what the ALt right wants you to believe. all or nothing.

Why not require permit FOR all guns. Allow every body who has a gun legal or not to register it and allow amnesty.
Require news gun owner to register. If you are stop carrying your gun and you have your permit off you go. If theirs a shooting in your area you would be asked to allow your gun to be inspected. if your clean no problem.

Or any other good suggestion would work BUT its not black and white there are lots of reasonable options which the right wing NRA rejects.

We do not need to change the second amendment. Simple laws to reasonable improve gun safety are what is needed

Won't fly... let me seriously explain why.

Registration has "always" led to "confiscation" and I mean always.

Once there is a registry, you are then given the option to turn them in or become an outlaw or get murdered in many cases.

rense.com...

* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine.


* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.


* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million


* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum.

* Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".

originally posted by: ausername
I've very recently discovered and concluded there is absolutely no middle ground in the gun debate in this country, it's either one extreme or the other. One way or the other, all or nothing, no compromise. Everything is a slippery slope leading to a total gun grab.

Like so many issues in government in this country, you have to be on one side or the other, otherwise you're irrelevant and insignificant noise no one will hear.

Well, that's because you either take all the guns out, so nobody can have them, or people will still have them and be able to go on shooting sprees.

The problem is, no law on paper will actually reduce the count of the tools, so even if you "take them all away" they are still there, you just become in violation for holding them. The question then is, are the ones who would go on shooting sprees going to care if they are violating the law?

The answer is an unequivocal and certain no. No, they aren't going to care. So by default, the only objective gained by such laws is to remove a defenders equalizer/force multiplier and reduce their ability to defend against such a shooter. You can see this in England, where people with shotguns can just walk down the street laying pellets into anybody they want, wherein the police on the beat can't even come to help, they have to turn and run just like everybody else.

Any place that has banned guns has proved that banning guns doesn't stop shooting sprees, it only allows them to go on longer before they are stopped. There are a massive amount of would be "Mass Shootings" that are stopped on the daily by return fire, you just don't hear about them because they didn't have the opportunity to wrack up a body count, however -- there is no shortage of videos out there showing this happening.

The real answer is to give everybody a gun and let them open carry. Crime would plummet.

Just look at the Norway shooting that left 68 dead from gun fire, and an additional 8 from the bomb. Gun laws there were pretty strict, note no law stopped him from going on a rampage, and no law could have stopped him from making that bomb. If people want to kill, they don't care about rules.

Lets just say in the event that they did pass laws banning all guns of all types, and then went out and confiscated them all and didn't miss a single one. What happens when somebody makes one in their machine shop or 3D Printer? Now nobody has an answer and his body count will be the highest of all time. Game set and match. Bans do not work for ANYTHING, never have, and never will. If it exists, or can exist, people will have them and eventually use them to do something terrible, no law can prevent crime, law punishes crime. Nothing can prevent crime, it's just not possible.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
didn't any of these brothers of our family of man ever go rabbit hunting?

If the gun were being used for hunting rabbit we would care.

More and more mass shooting are happening because there are so many guns, literally, laying around.

There is a thread on this site about kids accidentally killing people with guns they found lying around. 53 people had been shot by kids in the first three months of the years.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Logarock

Don't worry. The press cannot amend the Constitution.

That isn't the issue as much as the press getting people to believe it can easily be amended, or even disregarded.

Currently they are giving the impression that the constitution can be disregarded by the people, just like the press does in choosing what to disregard and what to argue for.

PLease point me to a media outlet that is saying that sort of s#it?
I would be interested.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: elysiumfire

If all muslims aren't terrorists, then why are all gun owners subject to gun control, confiscation, banning?

because all guns can kill.

BY the way way you should at least argue FAIRLY. the states HAS no gun, they can take guns from murders, and currently you have NO Xucking bans on any sort of gun. Even California , the strictest of the states, cannot keep from moving in with guns.

DONT whine about $hit that hasn't happened.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Do you believe that any of those fine men pictured would give a
gun to man they knew was sick in the head?