Yes, they really do want your guns.

"Give me one valid reason for a civilian to own an AR-15!"

The same person......:

"The government is literally rounding people up and putting them into concentration camps!"

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: shooterbrody

Meanwhile hundreds of innocent people are getting killed.

Since this nation's birth, over a million soldiers died and several million have been injured obtaining and securing the Right you're trying to see removed over the loss of "hundreds of lives." How many thousands of lives have been saved from death, rape, assault, or other victimization thanks to the 2nd Amendment? And no, I'm not just talking about situations where a firearm was directly used against a criminal in a physical fashion, I'm also talking about the deterrent it's potential presence provides to *most* would be thugs.

a reply to: Graysen

Did you catch that the DoJ "revised the definition of burglary" to get at those numbers????

Yes, I caught that BJS expanded the definition so that a property crime and personal crime were kept together rather than being split apart.

They did away with the category of "home invasion," and called it a type of burglary, and then went on to say, that most burglars were unarmed!

Yea, no they didn’t. Home invasion is a type of burglary. This is another example of why it’s important to not just make things up and present them as facts.

So, 7% of all home-targeted crimes were home invasions.

Nope.

In about 28% of these burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary. In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member experienced some form of violent victimization

28% of burglaries occurred when somebody was home. 7% is when acts of violence were actually committed. An act of violence is not a requirement for a home invasion charge. Burglary is entering a structure with the intent to commit a crime. Home invasion is burglary targeting a residence. In most states the residence doesn’t even have to be occupied for it to be a home invasion.

Or do you think that 93 percent of home invaders break in empty-handed? Do they pick the lock on the front door with their fingernails

No, I think about 60% of burglars are unarmed. And I think it’s adorable that you apparently think burglars pick locks more often than just opening an unlocked door, window, or kicking a door in. You don’t need a weapon to open a door, guy.

Are they pro-wrestlers, and just body slam their victims???

I don’t know what their occupation is, but I do know the most common form of violence in a robbery is simple assault. Which you don’t need to be a pro wrestler to do.

You are the one questioning my assertions.

I usually challenge made up information, yes. That doesn’t put the burden of proof on me. You’re the one that said most home invasions involve automatic rifles with high-cap mags. It’s on you to support that, it’s not on me to disprove it (even though I did that anyway) when your statement is questioned.

I don't feel the need to write a research paper to please you, especially when you cannot see through the sophmoric doublespeak of the UCR.

It would just be easier if you said “I’m not going to defend my statements because I made them up, and I’m going to attempt to shift the burden of proof to you” than whatever it is you think you’re doing. Coming from the guy who didn’t know that home invasion is classed as a type of burglary, I’m not real confident in your understanding of the UCR, double-speak or otherwise. Doubling down like this and attempting to shift the burden of proof is just silly, but I understand that you probably didn’t like having your made up “stats” attacked. You do a disservice to the pro-2nd crowd when you couch your arguments in made up stats and logical fallacies.

Increased background checks is not the equivalent of banning all guns or taking them away. That is fear based rhetoric put out by conservative shills that are owned by gun lobby and the NRA and it's not indicative of the American people's opinion as a whole.

Hilariously ironic that anybody could call themselves pro life but be so deeply in love with a weapon that you'll ignore the fact that we have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world despite being a first world country and that mass shootings are a major problem. It's downright ridiculous and anybody lobbying against gun regulations and background checks has blood on their hands. Y'all deserve your guns taken away at this point.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Where did I say that 'I'm trying to remove your Rights'?
Please show me where I suggested anything of the sort.

What I was saying was that things really shouldn't continue as they are.
Something needs to change.

What that change should entail I don't know - I'm neither clever or informed enough.

But as far as I can see you need some sort of urgent and honest discussion whereby both sides give careful consideration to alternative viewpoints instead of immediately dismissing them out of hand like at present.

If you want to maintain the status quo then at least admit that these mass killings are an acceptable price to pay for your Second Amendment.
Because that's what it looks like to the rest of the world.

a reply to: Freeborn

I'lll just put this here www.filmsforaction.org... 0XLDzRsuxQZy-BtPHsvfJKU7w0


the 12 most common fallacious gun arguments....says it all.......the world needs some common sense,,,we are NOT trying to ban all guns

a reply to: research100

Anyone know how Jeffrey Epstein is doing?

a reply to: Freeborn
What part of our right do you not understand?
ALL of the gun homicides are the cost of 2a.
Not just the "mass" murders.
Around 30k in the latest stats
Another 12k if you include suicide

42kish....
Roughly the same amount as in car crashes.

Guess we like cars more.
Nobody is freaking out about car crashes.

Guess some deaths are more than others?

Cause NOBODY is calling for banning cars.
ALL OF THOSE DEATHS ARE PREVENTABLE.

a reply to: Freeborn

I'd ask how many innocents have been saved by guns?? I know of at least three. My cousin, who was being threatened by her sisters ex...thankfully, she didn't have to shoot him. Me. Though how innocent I am is open to question...the would be burglar left when he saw I was armed. I didn't have to shoot either. God knows what might have happened in either case without a gun being present...

The third was a friend who was being stalked by her ex-husband, who'd already beaten her badly twice. I, along with another friend, bought her a handgun--a Glock 17, as I recall--and spent several days teaching her how to use it. Unfortunately, she had to use it about a month later when the ex decided she needed another beat down. She shot him, though she didn't kill him.

So lives are saved by firearms, too. Most are never even reported, because there's no point to it.

Oh for God's sake will you people grow a spine.

Let's be clear:

1. The founding fathers never intended for any old idiot to have automatic weapons
2. If the govt wanted to, they could utterly DECIMATE you, your family, and your adorable little guns in a heartbeat with minimal effort
3. 2a = second AMENDMENT. When you go on about constitutional rights being non-negotiable you seem to completely ignore the fact that AMENDMENT means it has been AMENDED and yes, it can be again. If you think for one second that rules set CENTURIES ago should still be applicable without question today, then you're exactly why we have amendments.

Get back in your box. If you think waving your glock around on your subsidised farm (socialism, btw - enjoy) would be ANY problem for the govt then you deserve everything you get.

Grow up. Nobody is scared of you, trump doesn't give a # about you and you're helping him and his cronies make money.

You're traitors, not patriots. Shame on you.

Now, go back to worshipping your billionaire president and his immigrant wife.

Inalienable rights. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION.

EOL.

a reply to: fencesitter85

1. The founding fathers never intended for any old idiot to have automatic weapons

What were the founders’ intentions regarding automatic weapons, pray tell?

2. If the govt wanted to, they could utterly DECIMATE you, your family, and your adorable little guns in a heartbeat with minimal effort

Provided they could find enough people to help them do it, yes. All the more reason to not make it even easier for them.

3. 2a = second AMENDMENT. When you go on about constitutional rights being non-negotiable you seem to completely ignore the fact that AMENDMENT means it has been AMENDED and yes, it can be again. If you think for one second that rules set CENTURIES ago should still be applicable without question today, then you're exactly why we have amendments

Indeed. Sort of the whole discussion in the OP - people wanting to amend it to an extreme.

Get back in your box. If you think waving your glock around on your subsidised farm (socialism, btw - enjoy) would be ANY problem for the govt then you deserve everything you get.

First it’s a box, then it’s a farm. It’s almost like you’re just trying to be insulting or something.

Grow up. Nobody is scared of you,

Then....don’t worry about our guns?

You're traitors, not patriots. Shame on you.

I am rubber, you are glue.

Now, go back to worshipping your billionaire president and his immigrant wife.

You realize that liking Trump isn’t a prerequisite for owning firearms, right? You can like...even be a Democrat and like guns. You do get that, right?

Oh for God's sake will you people grow a spine.

Will you?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Time and time again 2A supporters are told “nobody is coming for your guns.” Time and again 2A supporters are left baffled at how anybody can say that line with a straight face. Gun control advocacy groups, Hollywood, and any number of the political elite are entirely happy to cry “ban all the gunz!” as they sit in their walled compounds with armed security manning the gate.

Luckily, though, the oh-so-unbiased Vox has finally put it in writing. They’ve finally made it easy for 2A supporters to reply to the above claim easily and quickly, with a source, that shows definitively that “they” are most definitely trying to come for our guns. Does Vox make policy? No, of course not. And they certainly don’t enforce policy. What they can do, though, is excoriate the moderate left for not being extreme gun-grabbers who want anything more complex than a wheel gun banned and, if need be, confiscated by force. Somehow, Vox manages to acknowledge that existing gun control laws are rife with poor enforcement and application yet still claim those laws are nowhere near strong enough.

I hope that this kills the notion of “nobody is coming for your guns.” I don’t think it will, but I can hope. Just because one individual member of ATS isn’t coming for your guns doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of voices calling for exactly that.

Honestly, if you want to look at where the most "gun control" legislation has ever actually been passed, go take a look at many of the state legislatures. They are the ones who are actually coming for your guns lol. The federal government is so bloated and conflicted that most bills of this nature rarely get any traction.

Politicians and deepstate fear a citizen's revolt that is why they need guns banned. Laws wont effect criminals.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yee mutha F...in ha damn straight they can sabre rattle and have all the agendas they like I'll front the popcorn when you want to watch anyone even the US military try to disarm 393 million guns from people lol yeah. Believe me their agenda would run out of people quickly.

originally posted by: carewemust
There is no good reason for any gun that holds more than 25 rounds to be available to the public.

I always see this kind of thing; and it literally doesn't make any sense. It would be one thing if crazy technology was needed to fabricate these things and we relied on manufacturers to do it -- but we don't, and they aren't.

I can make a gun in my garage right now, and I can make it hold how ever many rounds I want it to hold. Guns aren't crazy tech that requires ridiculous effort to produce, they are primitive tech that have been around since the 1600's.

In other words, literally anybody can make them and we don't need Glock or Smith and Wesson to do it -- so what law is going to remove guns? You gonna ban power tools?

It's all fantasy. You can't control what people have, what they make, what they will do with what they have or what they made. Banning a 26 round mag over a 19 round mag literally makes no difference in terms of "kill potential" -- you only have to factor in the practice of reloading. A practiced person can do so in fractions of a second.

From Bob Owens...
Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

a reply to: SRPrime

With 3D printers you can actually make some pretty complex and hardy fully automatic weapons.

Blueprints are out there if you know where to look. The metal parts you need are easy to fabricate or order online.

The smart and prudent thing to do is stop trying to stuff the Genie back in the bottle and look for better ways to get your wishes granted.

a reply to: fencesitter85

1. The Founding Fathers knew about the existance of the early style machine gun, cannons, grenades, etc. If they had wanted to restrict people from having them, they would have said so in the Amendment.

2. Sure, but not without concequences and eventually sparking off an event that would lead to a civil war and dealing with that would not be a minimal effort.

3. We have a lot of rules on the books and in the Constitution that are very old and still followed. Old doesn't mean usless or antiquated. But hey, the Constitution can be amended and there are rules for making it happen and it has happened in the past, so it could happen again if enough people wanted it to.

The rest of your post is just borning and tedious insults and rhetoric.

Patriots and traitors...it depends on what side of history you end up on. Technically the Founders of this country were all traitors, so, you know...

a reply to: fencesitter85

You're not scared of me? Oh, I'm hurt...'cause I'm such a badass.

If no one is scared, why so concerned about my guns--which have never, and will never, I most fervently hope, be used to hurt anyone?

Traitor? In what way, do please elucidate further.

Worshipping a billionaire and his legally immigrated wife? Why would I do that, I didn't vote for the man?