Feinstein going for another gun ban

So, 04', we should NOT trust the government enough to legislate morals to us (ala Christian Conservatives), but we SHOULD trust them enough to take away the ultimate check against their overreach?

How do you square that, logically?

Faith in nonsense and made up assertions contrary to human nature and reality disqualifies Christian Conservatives from legislating public morals.:p

On the other hand, faith in nonsense and made up assertions contrary to human nature also disqualifies the government from accomplishing any meaningful solution to gun violence.:rolleyes:
 
Faith in nonsense and made up assertions contrary to human nature and reality disqualifies Christian Conservatives from legislating public morals.:p

On the other hand, faith in nonsense and made up assertions contrary to human nature also disqualifies the government from accomplishing any meaningful solution to gun violence.:rolleyes:

That's not an answer.

More of a dodge. ;)
 
My bias here is that I grew up in a civilized place without a gun culture and have never felt threatened to the point of needing or wanting a gun.
I also don't hunt so it's easy for me to be for gun control.
Guns are like fireworks.
Where they are allowed there are always people getting hurt and having accidents. it's a statistical certainty.
You still haven't come up with a plausible example of this government tyranny you fear so much.
You are attempting to claim that civilization can only exist where there are no guns. There is no evidence to back up this assertion, and in fact the opposite is true. See America circa 1775.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

Your inability or unwillingness to understand the need for a gun is not a justification for shredding the Bill of Rights, or for denying anybody else a Constitutional right to self-defense. In short, who the hell are you to tell me what I can or cannot own?

I don’t understand why 2 guys have to get married.
I don’t understand why there are women out there who need to kill their unborn babies.
I don’t understand why people need to drive cars when they could walk or ride their bikes.
I don’t understand why people need to make more money than 200,000 per year.
I don't understand why someone needs to drive a Lincoln LS when a Honda Civic will do just fine.

Chaos comes out of not ‘understanding’ a lot of things.

Where no guns are allowed there are mass shootings, see Newtown Connecticut. It's not just a statistical certainty, it's a historical fact. You must be retarded because I've already pointed this out to you.

I can come up with plenty of plausible examples of government tyranny, your weak attempts at moving the goalposts notwithstanding. You aren't interested in learning anything, however, so I'll be brief. Pearls, swine and all that.

Hitler
Stalin
Kmer Rouge
Mussolini
Britain vs. the US

Gun confiscation leads to tyranny.
 
Actually I don't watch Stewart or Maher much anymore but you probably get all your news from Fox News which is incorporated as an entertainment channel that also brings us Family Guy and the Simpsons.
They know just how to play you.
Actually, I only watch Fox News in the morning so I can see what Gretchen Carlson is wearing. Other than that, no.

You are welcome to share any posts where I've quoted Fox News as a source, like you just did with Stewart.

Nice try, though.
 
Faith in nonsense and made up assertions contrary to human nature and reality disqualifies Christian Conservatives from legislating public morals.:p

On the other hand, faith in nonsense and made up assertions contrary to human nature also disqualifies the government from accomplishing any meaningful solution to gun violence.:rolleyes:
How about a $500 tax credit to buy a good gun safe?

How about a $500 marksmanship tax credit to promote gun safety?

How about shifting wasted government school tax money to security guards?

How about CCWs for teachers?

How about not letting wackos out of jail all the time?

Don't be naive. There are plenty of solutions.

The government has created the problem and is masquerading as its own cure.
 
The NRA once supported gun control

It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use

For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup.
In the years since, an NRA that once encouraged better markmanship and reasonable gun control laws gave way to an advocacy organization and political force that saw more guns as the answer to society’s worst violence, whether arming commercial airline pilots after 9/11 or teachers after the Newtown, while opposing new restrictions on gun usage.
It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.
“Historically, the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine,” wrote Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment scholar at U.C.L.A. Law School, in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. “The Second Amendment was not nearly as central to the NRA’s identity for most of the organization’s history.”
Once Upon A Time…
The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Yankee Civil War veterans, including an ex-New York Times reporter, who felt that war dragged on because more urban northerners could not shoot as well as rural southerners. It’s motto and focus until 1977 was not fighting for constitutional rights to own and use guns, but “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shhoting for Recreation,” which was displayed in its national headquarters.
The NRA’s first president was a northern Army General, Ambrose Burnside. He was chosen to reflect this civilian-militia mission, as envisioned in the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The understanding of the Amendment at the time concerned having a prepared citizenry to assist in domestic military matters, such as repelling raids on federal arsenals like 1786’s Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts or the British in the War of 1812. Its focus was not asserting individual gun rights as today, but a ready citizenry prepared by target shooting. The NRA accepted $25,000 from New York State to buy a firing range ($500,000 today). For decades, the U.S. military gave surplus guns to the NRA and sponsored shooting contests.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA’s leaders helped write and lobby for the first federal gun control laws—the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tryanny. The 17th Amendment outlawing alchohol became law in 1920 and was soon followed by the emergence of big city gangsters who outgunned the police by killing rivals with sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—today called automatic weapons.
In the early 1920s, the National Revolver Association—the NRA’s handgun training counterpart—proposed model legislation for states that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, adding five years to a prison sentence if a gun was used in a crime, and banning non-citizens from buying a handgun. They also proposed that gun dealers turn over sales records to police and created a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and getting it—two provisions that the NRA opposes today.
Nine states adopted these laws: West Virginia, New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, Oregon, California, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Connecticut. Meanwhile, the American Bar Association had been working to create uniform state laws, and built upon the proposal but made the waiting period two days. Nine more states adopted it: Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
State gun control laws were not controversial—they were the norm. Within a generation of the country’s founding, many states passed laws banning any citizen from carrying a concealed gun. The cowboy towns that Hollywood lionized as the ‘Wild West’ actually required all guns be turned in to sheriffs while people were within local city limits. In 1911, New York state required handgun owners to get a permit, following an attempted assassination on New York City’s mayor. (Between 1865 and 1901, three presidents had been killed by handguns: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley.) But these laws were not seen as effective against the Depression’s most violent gangsters.
In 1929, Al Capone’s St. Valentine’s Day massacre saw men disguised as Chicago police kill 7 rivals with machine guns. Bonnie and Clyde’s crime-and-gun spree from 1932-34 was a national sensation. John Dellinger robbed 10 banks in 1933 and fired a machine gun as he sped away. A new president in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt, made fighting crime and gun control part of his ‘New Deal.’ The NRA helped him draft the first federal gun controls: 1934’s National Firearms Act and 1938’s Gun Control Act.
The NRA President at the time, Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praised the new state gun controls in Congress. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he testified before the 1938 law was passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
These federal firearms laws imposed high taxes and registration requirements on certain classes of weapons—those used in gang violence like machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers—making it all-but impossible for average people to own them. Gun makers and sellers had to register with the federal government, and certain classes of people—notably convicted felons—were barred from gun ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld these laws in 1939.
The legal doctrine of gun rights balanced by gun controls held for nearly a half-century.
In November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle that Owsald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine. In congressional hearings that soon followed, NRA Executive Vice-President Frankin Orth supported a ban in mail-order sales, saying, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”
But no new federal gun control laws came until 1968. The assassinations of civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were the tipping point, coming after several summers of race-related riots in American cities. The nation’s white political elite feared that violence was too prevalent and there were too many people—especially urban Black nationalists—with access to guns. In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
The Gun Control Act of 1968 reauthorized and deepened the FDR-era gun control laws. It added a minimum age for gun buyers, required guns have serial numbers and expanded people barred from owning guns from felons to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. Only federally licensed dealers and collectors could ship guns over state lines. People buying certain kinds of bullets had to show I.D. But the most stringent proposals—a national registry of all guns (which some states had in colonial times) and mandatory licenses for all gun carriers—were not in it. The NRA blocked these measures. Orth told America Riflemen magazine that while part of the law “appears unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”
The Paranoid Libertarians’ Hostile Takeover
Perhaps the sportsmen of America could abide by the new law, but within the NRA’s broad membership were key factions that resented the new federal law. Thoughout the 1960s, there were a few articles in American Rifleman saying the NRA was waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the Second Amendment included the right to own a gun, Joan Burbick recounts in her 2006 book, Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy.
But in the mid-1960s, the Black Panthers were better-known than the NRA for expressing that view of the Second Amendment. By 1968, however, Burbick notes that the NRA’s magazine’s most assertive editorials began saying the problem was fighting crime and not guns—which we hear today. The 1968 law ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the new gun laws. In 1971, ATF raided a lifetime NRA member’s house who was suspected of having a large illegal arms cache and shot and killed him. That prompted “the ardent reactionary William Leob,” then editor of New Hampshire’s influential Manchester Union Leader newspaper, to call the federal agents “Treasury Gestapo,” Burbick noted, even though later evidence confirmed the weapons cache. Loeb and other white libertarians with podiums started to assert that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to guns—like the Black Panthers. But, of course, they were seeking to keep America’s white gun owners fully armed.
A split started to widen inside the NRA. Gun dealers thought they were being harassed. Rural states felt they were being unduly punished for urban America’s problems. In 1975, the NRA created a new lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, under Harlon B. Carter, a tough-minded former chief of the U.S. Border Patrol who shared the libertarian goal of expanding gun owners’ rights. Burdick writes that “by 1976, the political rhetoric had gained momentum and the bicentennial year brought out a new NRA campaign, ‘designed to enroll defenders of the right to keep and bear arms’ in numbers equal to ‘the ranks of the patriots who fought in the American Revolution.’”
Looking back, the seeds of a hostile internal takeover were everywhere.
Harlon Carter wasn’t just another hard-headed Texan who grew up in a small town that was once home to frontiersman Davy Crockett. He was an earlier era’s version of George Zimmerman, the Floridian young man who claims to have shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense in February 2012—even though police records and 911 recordings seem to show Zimmerman was looking for a fight. According to Carol Vinzant’s 2005 book, Lawyers, Guns, and Money: One Man’s Battle With The Gun Industry, a 17-year-old Carter found and confronted a Mexican teenager who he believed helped steal his family’s car. When the 15-year-old pulled a knife, Carter shot and killed him. His conviction was overturned when an appeals court said the jury should have considered a self-defense argument.
In November 1976, the NRA’s old guard Board of Directors fired Carter and 80 other employees associated with the more expansive view of the Second Amendment and implicit distrusting any government firearm regulation. For months, the Carter cadre secretly plotted their revenge and hijacked the NRA’s annual meeting in Cincinatti in May 1977. The meeting had been moved from Washington to protest its new gun control law. Winkler writes that Carter’s top deputy Neal Knox was even more extreme than him—wanting to roll back all existing gun laws, including bans on machine guns and saying the federal government had killed Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as “part of a plot to advance gun control.”
Using the NRA’s parliamentary rules, the rebels interrupted the agenda from the floor and revised how the Board of Directors was chosen, recommited the NRA to fighting gun control and restored the lobbying ILA. Harlon Carter became the NRA’s new executive director. He cancelled a planned move of its national headquarters from Washington to Colorado Springs. And he changed the organization’s motto on its DC headquarters, selectively editing the Second Amendment to reflect a non-compromising militancy, “The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”
After Carter was re-elected to lead the NRA in 1981, The New York Times reported on Carter’s teenage vigilante killing—and how he changed his first name’s spelling to hide it. At first, he claimed the shooting was by someone else—and then recanted but refused to discuss it. Winkler writes, “the hard-liners in the NRA loved it. Who better to lead them than a man who really understood the value of a gun for self-protection?”
After the coup, the NRA ramped up donations to congressional campaigns. “And in 1977, new articles on the Second Amendment appeared” in American Rifleman, Burbick noted, “rewriting American history to legitimize the armed citizen unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford.” That revisionist perspective was endorsed by a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee chaired by Utah Republican Orrin Hatch in 1982, when staffers wrote a report concluding it had discovered “long lost proof” of an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms.
The NRA’s fabricated but escalating view of the Second Amendment was ridiculed by former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—a conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon—in a PBS Newshour interview in 1991, where he called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Burger would not have imagined that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008—13 years after he died—led by libertarian activist Justice Antonin Scalia—would enshrine that “fraud” into the highest echelon of American law by decreeing that the Second Amendment included the right to own a gun for self-protection in one’s home.

________________________________________________________

And you guys whine about leftists trying to reinterpret the constitution and here we have a modern version of it.
 
He never answers. He just treats every discussion like it's a big joke.

He has neither the desire nor the capacity to learn anything new.


This is an answer.
IMO people who believe in faith beyond reason supernatural nonsense (noble but childish stories that are the sum of human failure as Einstein put his opinion of the Bible) are not fit to tell others what to do.
I thought conservatives wanted a small government that would stay out of people's personal lives.
Obviously that is not the case and conservatives won't even admit be the public does not support their assertions.
They have been defeated but won't concede gracefully.
What part of losing do they not understand.
 
The bare shelves and walls of my local gun store say that people are not wanting these far leftist bans.

Since hammers killed more people last year than all rifles combined, when are we expecting the hammer ban?
 
The NRA once supported gun control

It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use blah blah blah...

And you guys whine about leftists trying to reinterpret the constitution and here we have a modern version of it.
Still don't understand the issue, do ya.
 
This is an answer.
IMO people who believe in faith beyond reason supernatural nonsense (noble but childish stories that are the sum of human failure as Einstein put his opinion of the Bible) are not fit to tell others what to do.
I thought conservatives wanted a small government that would stay out of people's personal lives.
Obviously that is not the case and conservatives won't even admit be the public does not support their assertions.
They have been defeated but won't concede gracefully.
What part of losing do they not understand.
Your thoughts seem to be random and don't follow a logical progression. You leap from 'Christianity is nonsense' to 'conservatives suck lol' and nobody can follow your train of thought.

Since when do conservatives not want a small government? Please give examples. And also, prove that Christians want to tell others what to do. Please note: Proof by assertion is not an argument.

Meanwhile, I'll give you evidence that liberals want to control people's lives.

- Taxes on everything
- Bans on everything from tobacco products to salty foods to sugary drinks
- Forcing people to buy insurance they don't want or need
- Gun control
- Banning drilling
- Shutting down companies
- Killing jobs
 
I can literally take the bottom receiver from the USMC issued M16, and pair it with the upper receiver from my civilian AR-15.

That is mind boggling that you think is like "comparing a honda to a NASCAR"

I can take the heart of a serial killer and put it in a priest.

Does that make them the same?
 
I am more than happy to talk face to face to someone who thinks I am less of a man because I would multiple firearms including an AR15.

It would be an interesting discussion.
 
Your thoughts seem to be random and don't follow a logical progression. You leap from 'Christianity is nonsense' to 'conservatives suck lol' and nobody can follow your train of thought.

Since when do conservatives not want a small government? Please give examples. And also, prove that Christians want to tell others what to do.

Meanwhile, I'll give you evidence that liberals want to control people's lives.

- Taxes on everything
- Bans on everything from tobacco products to sugary drinks
- Forcing people to buy insurance they don't want or need
- Gun control

Please note: Proof by assertion is not an argument.

Overly religion first people should stay out of politics because IMO it violates the spirit of the Establishment Clause in keeping Church and State seperate.
We don't hire a plumber when we need a doctor.
Faith is unreasonable and we need reasoned people not unreasonable ones who rely on supernatural assertions in running the government.
Both parties want to control people but in different ways.
Conservatives may say they want a smaller government but as Christian conservatives also want to stick themselves into the most intimate and personal moral aspects of peoples lives so they can tell them what to do or not do.
Asian Americans who you would think would support conservatives with their hard working 2 parent family values voted 75% for Obama because according to one opinion I read, they see the conservatives as a bunch of crazy old white hot headed gun loving anti gay anti abortion creationists who treat those not like them with disdain and contempt.

If you want to live in a place with no taxes I say you should move to Somalia and duke it out with the Warlords using those mighty guns you own
and see how far you get.
You live in Kentucky, a Red low tax right to work state that is subsidized by the transfer payments from the higher taxes of a Blue one so in the life is contradictory vein them hated Obama voting liberals are subsidizing you.
Maybe the Red states need to pay their fair share depite being poorer and less well educated than the Blue States whose hand they keep biting while complaining about the "takers"
 
Hundreds sign up to live in the Citadel – an armed, 'defensible' fortress community planned for Idaho


  • Radical community will be funded in part by an arms factory
  • Walled city will boast firearms museum and defensible sections
  • Residents will live in accordance with Jefferson's ideal of rightful liberty
  • 200 families already signed up through the group's website
  • 'Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans' warned to stay clear
[URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262100/Hundreds-sign-live-Citadel--armed-defensible-fortress-community-planned-Idaho.html"][URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262100/Hundreds-sign-live-Citadel--armed-defensible-fortress-community-planned-Idaho.html"][URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262100/Hundreds-sign-live-Citadel--armed-defensible-fortress-community-planned-Idaho.html"][url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262100/Hundreds-sign-live-Citadel--armed-defensible-fortress-community-planned-Idaho.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

Hundreds of families have signed up to join a new community dubbed the Citadel, an armed and 'defensible' fortress city where their freedoms and liberty will be fiercely protected.
Organisers have outlined plans for a community of 3,500 to 7,000 families of 'patriotic' Americans in western Idaho living and more than 200 have already signed up through their website.
The group has already purchased 20 acres in the area where they intend to build an arms factory which will be used to fund the project.
A plan for the fortress shown on the website includes a perimeter wall complete with 18 look-out towers, a firearms museum, a reflecting pool, a school and an amphitheatre.
The community will live in accordance with Thomas Jefferson's ideal of rightful liberty which is described as 'neighbors keep their noses out of other neighbors' business, that neighbors live and let live.'

A warning on the homepage reads: 'Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles.'
According to the Citadel website states that residents will bound by the following principles:


  • Patriotism
  • Pride in American Exceptionalism
  • Our proud history of Liberty as defined by our Founding Fathers, and
  • Physical preparedness to survive and prevail in the face of natural catastrophes --such as Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina -- or man-made catastrophes such as a power grid failure or economic collapse.
Anyone planning on joining the Citadel community is expected to be proficient with a rifle and to be 'prepared for the emergencies of life'.
In return the Citadel will offer a safe, well-prepared, patriotic community where children will be educated in school, not indoctrinated.

The website carries an advert to an associated gun retailer which urges visitors to 'buy an AR before it's too late' - referring to military-type assault rifles as used by gunman Adam Lanza during the Sandy Hook massacre.
Following the shootings at the elementary school in New Town, Connecticut are underway to make the sale of such weapons illegal, which is seen by some groups as an attack on their liberties.
The Citadel website says that people selected to live in the community 'will voluntarily agree to follow the footsteps of our Founding Fathers by swearing to one another our lives, our fortunes and our Sacred Honor to defend one another and Liberty against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'

__________________________________________________
Going back to medieval times?
Somehow it seems comically appropriate.
Don't these people have anything better to do than prepare for a government standoff?

article-2262100-16EEDDE5000005DC-968_634x844.jpg
 
You live in Kentucky, a Red low tax right to work state that is subsidized by the transfer payments from the higher taxes of a Blue one so in the life is contradictory vein them hated Obama voting liberals are subsidizing you.
Maybe the Red states need to pay their fair share depite being poorer and less well educated than the Blue States whose hand they keep biting while complaining about the "takers"
There you go again, changing the subject after I destroyed your gun arguments.

And you're wrong again. Blue states do not subsidize red states. You've been reading too much Daily Kos and watching too much MSNBC.

States-Funding.png
 
Overly religion first people should stay out of politics because IMO it violates the spirit of the Establishment Clause in keeping Church and State seperate.
We don't hire a plumber when we need a doctor.
Faith is unreasonable and we need reasoned people not unreasonable ones who rely on supernatural assertions in running the government.
Both parties want to control people but in different ways.
Conservatives may say they want a smaller government but as Christian conservatives also want to stick themselves into the most intimate and personal moral aspects of peoples lives so they can tell them what to do or not do.
Asian Americans who you would think would support conservatives with their hard working 2 parent family values voted 75% for Obama because according to one opinion I read, they see the conservatives as a bunch of crazy old white hot headed gun loving anti gay anti abortion creationists who treat those not like them with disdain and contempt.
Surprising you don't see the irony in your mockery of the 'gun rights' people interpreting the 2nd Amendment the way it's written, while at the same time pontificating about the 'Spirit of the Establishment Clause.' Double standard much? "IMO" means IN MY OPINION. But your opinion doesn't hold any more weight than anyone else's, so you're nothing but a hypocrite.

Oh, and by the way, the chump that you voted for is definitely relying on supernatural assertions in running the government.

"The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted.

In terms of on the political trail, I don't find it challenging to be respectful and courteous to people, including my political opponents. You know, the Golden Rule still applies in politics." - Barack Obama
 
The majority of Americans who want bans on assault weapons are thwarted by the current interpretation of the right to bear arms, an interpretation ironically brought about by the minority gun lobby cleverly jumping on the rights bandwagon in the 60's copying the tactics of the rights campaigns of various leftists.


Overly religion first people should stay out of politics because IMO it violates the spirit of the Establishment Clause in keeping Church and State seperate.
See the hypocrite contradict himself. :lol:
 
'04, you do realize that a lot of these articles you are cherry picking are blatantly engaging in half-truths and misdirection to dismiss a point of view they don't want to consider. For instance, all the absurd attempts to dismiss the NRA (and by implication any similar viewpoint) as merely opportunistic, reactionary and unprincipled. By that same type of "examination" of history and the fact, we would have to conclude that anyone even remotely supporting gun bans (including you) is racist because the gun control movement has a historically strong tie to early and mid 20th century racist movements.

Instead of looking for every excuse to dismiss the pro-gun argument, how about you actually try and confront it and disprove it?
 
'04, you do realize that a lot of these articles you are cherry picking are blatantly engaging in half-truths and misdirection to dismiss a point of view they don't want to consider. For instance, all the absurd attempts to dismiss the NRA (and by implication any similar viewpoint) as merely opportunistic, reactionary and unprincipled. By that same type of "examination" of history and the fact, we would have to conclude that anyone even remotely supporting gun bans (including you) is racist because the gun control movement has a historically strong tie to early and mid 20th century racist movements.

Instead of looking for every excuse to dismiss the pro-gun argument, how about you actually try and confront it and disprove it?
I already asked him why he hates black people.

He won't answer.

Speaks volumes, no? :rolleyes:
 
'04, you do realize that a lot of these articles you are cherry picking are blatantly engaging in half-truths and misdirection to dismiss a point of view they don't want to consider. For instance, all the absurd attempts to dismiss the NRA (and by implication any similar viewpoint) as merely opportunistic, reactionary and unprincipled. By that same type of "examination" of history and the fact, we would have to conclude that anyone even remotely supporting gun bans (including you) is racist because the gun control movement has a historically strong tie to early and mid 20th century racist movements.

Instead of looking for every excuse to dismiss the pro-gun argument, how about you actually try and confront it and disprove it?

Racism meh
That was then and this is now.
Black people are more likely to suffer from gun violence.

You also selectively dismiss history that is not convenient to your viewpoint.
The NRA has won since launching it's reinterpretation of the 2nd ammendment in 1977.

You guys have "won" and may as well be crowing "we got our guns and there's practically nothing you can do about it" instead of crying tyranny.

I agree with you that the Gun Free Zone idea has not quite worked out as planned.
Everybody seems ok with background checks and somehow keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and people convicted of domestic abuse.
However those not allowed to buy guns can use a straw buyer like the woman up on charges for supplying
the AR-15 and a shotgun to the guy who set his house on fire then killed 2 firemen and wounded 2 others in upstate NY before committing suicide.
The pro gun argument is that there's so many guns out there that it is futile to try and control them now and we may as well allow more people to arm themselves for protection because that's the only thing that will work.
The public has anger denial bargaining acceptance.
I think we're at bargaining right now before acceptance that nothing will change.

After the NRA's 2nd ammendment accomplishment of putting military semi automatic assault rifles into the hands of almost anybody who wants one there is a certain logic to further turning the county into an armed camp:rolleyes:

Cynically, killing little children with an AR-15 in a horror show atrocity has been very good for the assault gun business :rolleyes: and NRA new memberships.
Human nature is a funny thing.

With tongue in cheek I say some of you must be very proud ;)
 
The pro gun argument is that there's so many guns out there that it is futile to try and control them now and we may as well allow more people to arm themselves for protection because that's the only thing that will work.
The public has anger denial bargaining acceptance.
I think we're at bargaining right now before acceptance that nothing will change.
False. That is NOT the pro gun argument. That is a classic STRAW MAN argument. You continue to demonstrate that you do NOT UNDERSTAND THE GUN ISSUE. Congrats.

After the NRA's 2nd ammendment accomplishment of putting military semi automatic assault rifles into the hands of almost anybody who wants one there is a certain logic to further turning the county into an armed camp:rolleyes:
Hey genius, there is no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle. Second, semis have been available and prolific long before the NRA existed. Can you try to construct an argument that isn't filled with angry, hateful, yet stupid, invective?

numbnuts scary rifle.jpg

Cynically, killing little children with an AR-15 in a horror show atrocity has been very good for the assault gun business :rolleyes: and NRA new memberships.

Human nature is a funny thing.

With tongue in cheek I say some of you must be very proud ;)
False. The two events are not related. The new NRA memberships are in response to FEINSTEIN's politically motivated and ghoulish attempt to GRAB GUNS.

Furthermore, it is YOUR ghoulish lefty party who is dancing on the graves of the dead children here.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/ed-rendell-msnbc-boosting-gun-control-good-thing-about-sandy-hook

So, as usual, you have things backwards and out of phase. It is YOU who are trying to USE the tragedy to further your own political ends. It is YOU who doesn't care about the dead children or preventing further loss of life, only about depriving people you don't understand of the scary boomsticks that you fear.

Finally, you really need to stop whining about the NRA supposedly redefining the 2nd Amendment.

The only interpretation that matters is that of the US Supreme Court. See the Heller decision. That's all you need to know. If you don't like it, bugger off.

numbnuts scary rifle.jpg
 
Black people are more likely to suffer from gun violence.

Actually, statistics tend to show that demographic to be more likely to be BOTH victims AND perpetrators of gun violence than any other demographic.

You also selectively dismiss history that is not convenient to your viewpoint.

Actually, that would be you. You are doing that by narrowly focusing on the caricature of the NRA that fits what you want to believe without either A) critically examining that false narrative, or B) looking at the broader historical context.

Hence all the talk about the NRA's "reinterpretation" of the second amendment when in fact it is a return to the original intent of that amendment (if you had read the Federalist Papers you would know that).

After the NRA's 2nd ammendment accomplishment of putting military semi automatic assault rifles into the hands of almost anybody who wants one there is a certain logic to further turning the county into an armed camp:rolleyes:

You are misusing of the term "assault rifle". By legal definition, an "assault rifle" is a rifle capable of shooting more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger (burst fire or full auto). By legal definition the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" and the idea of a "semi automatic assault rifle" is oxymoronic.

Much of the language concerning the gun debate is largely designed by the Left to muddy the waters and poison the well (the misleading term "assault weapon" for instance). As Paul Begala famously said, “Defining the terms of the debate generally dictates who's gonna' win it.”

So, what do you think about those "high capacity magazine-clips"? I can certainly agree with banning them along with radiator bearings and unicorns. :p
 
You are misusing of the term "assault rifle". By legal definition, an "assault rifle" is a rifle capable of shooting more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger (burst fire or full auto). By legal definition the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" and the idea of a "semi automatic assault rifle" is oxymoronic.

Oh stop being a smart @ss.
This is what the public knows these guns as.
They are detuned automatic military assault guns with 10 to 30 round magazines that need 1 pull of the trigger per bullet but can be legally and illegally modified for full automatic firing.

semi automatic military assault rifle is an oxymoron.

You are the one being misleading here trying to remove "assault" out of the common term by hiding behind narrow legal definitions and changing the language with your assertion.

If not assault gun then how would you define this detuned military assault weapon beyond calling it a rifle?
Sport Gun? High Performance Gun? Muscle Gun?

And why does the Second Amendment prohibit fully automatic fire anyways if AR-15s are otherwise constitutional?
Why not go all the way :D with your Man Card?
 
I have to say, that I find all of this conversation rather amusing. I guess bringing a single citizen up on charges for providing a single rifle and shotgun, is ok. Even tho the federal government sent over 2,000 rifles and shotguns and handguns into mexico to arm the Drug Cartels. Thereby resulting in the deaths of over 400 mexican citizens, and countless american citizens. Also, over 1600 of said weapons are still unaccounted for. But I guess since they were not American children, its ok.
Wide Receiver, Hernandez case, Fast and Furious. All acts of Treason. Providing support and aid to the Drug Cartels a certified enemy of the United States and its people. Of course, nobody is in an uproar over it. Nobody is calling for the banning and disarming of the American Government. If civilians don't need them, then certainly the civilian government doesn't need them. I think the Hypocrisy is just incredible.
 

Members online

Back
Top