NRA - Support for Gun Control is falling like a rock!

[Cigar]

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130404-dont-believe-the-nra-hype-support-for-gun-control-stands-firm.jpg

A strong majority of Americans still favor stricter gun control laws, according to a new national Morning Joe/Marist poll, indicating that support for gun control is not waning, as one national poll found found in March. The poll found that 60% of Americans—83% of Democrats, 43% of gun owners, and 37% of Republicans—support stricter laws. That number is virtually unchanged from the 61% who favored the laws in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in February.

The Morning Joe/Marist poll also found an uptick in the number of Americans who prioritize controlling gun violence over gun rights: 53% of Americans believe stopping gun violence should have a higher priority, a step up from last month’s 49%.

Congress has struggled to find politically viable legislation to move forward on the matter, despite the strong support from Americans.

While the poll found that 87% believe in background checks for private and gun show gun sales—a key provision of the Senate’s background check bill—Republicans have vowed to fight it. Only 12% of Americans oppose universal background checks; just 1% in the Morning Joe/Marist poll said they were unsure on the issue.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/03/morning-joe-poll-support-for-gun-control/

Change has Come to America

http://artzthings.com/e-pins/images/large/pres-obama2.jpg

[Chris]

Rock is right in considering that support ought to be skyrocketing given all the emotional pleas from partisans on up to President.

[Cigar]

Looks like the Clinging to God and Guns was spot on

[hanger4]

Just a question Cigar,

What in Obama's gun-control proposals would have stopped the tragedy at Sandy Hook ??

[Private Pickle]

Just a question Cigar,

What in Obama's gun-control proposals would have stopped the tragedy at Sandy Hook ??

Your wasting your time. Sandy Hook is just an excuse to push a political agenda...these laws have nothing to do with Sandy Hook...never did...

[Cigar]

Just a question Cigar,

What in Obama's gun-control proposals would have stopped the tragedy at Sandy Hook ??


What in the Seat Belt Legislation requirement required in Automobiles would have saved Jimmy Dean?

[spunkloaf]

I do disagree with the president on the urgency of more gun control, and I disagree with the president on banning assault weapons. I agree that something should be addressed in regards to the gun violence that has been carried out. I just don't know what.

[Cigar]

Your wasting your time. Sandy Hook is just an excuse to push a political agenda...these laws have nothing to do with Sandy Hook...never did...


:grin: Tick-Tock

[Cigar]

I do disagree with the president on the urgency of more gun control, and I disagree with the president on banning assault weapons. I agree that something should be addressed in regards to the gun violence that has been carried out. I just don't know what.

I remember my Grandfather complaining as to why he's being told he needs to ware a seat belt because he's never has an accident.

[Private Pickle]

:grin: Tick-Tock

At least you admit to using the deaths of children to further your agenda. Your way at any cost huh? Ironic given your signature...

[Private Pickle]

I do disagree with the president on the urgency of more gun control, and I disagree with the president on banning assault weapons. I agree that something should be addressed in regards to the gun violence that has been carried out. I just don't know what.

Education and stricter laws around mental illness reporting.

[Chris]

I remember my Grandfather complaining as to why he's being told he needs to ware a seat belt because he's never has an accident.

Sandy Hook wasn't an accident, and seatbelts gave people a false sense of security so they speed up and more were killed than before.

[hanger4]

What in the Seat Belt Legislation requirement required in Automobiles would have saved Jimmy Dean?

Well nice for you to admit it's nothing but a political agenda.

Of course that just makes you, Obama and all the others even more disgusting

as they stand in the blood of those innocent children

to do nothing more than push a political agenda. :finger:

[spunkloaf]

Your wasting your time. Sandy Hook is just an excuse to push a political agenda...these laws have nothing to do with Sandy Hook...never did...

It's obvious that it does, at least in part. It's true that some idiots would rather ban guns altogether, and they have always felt that way. However, you can't see something like Sandy Hook or Columbine happen and expect people to stay quiet on the issue.

[spunkloaf]

Well nice for you to admit it's nothing but a political agenda.

Of course that just makes you, Obama and all the others even more disgusting

as they stand in the blood of those innocent children

to do nothing more than push a political agenda. :finger:

Wow, you're smart.

[Private Pickle]

It's obvious that it does, at least in part. It's true that some idiots would rather ban guns altogether, and they have always felt that way. However, you can't see something like Sandy Hook or Columbine happen and expect people to stay quiet on the issue.

It doesn't. The only thing it does it give the people who want to ban guns an excuse. Sandy Hook is the exception, not the rule. The laws they are enacting have nothing to do with protecting kids in school and everything to do with a stepping stone approach.

All Sandy Hook did was allow politicians to play off the emotions of people who were horrified by it...nothing more...

[spunkloaf]

It doesn't. The only thing it does it give the people who want to ban guns an excuse. Sandy Hook is the exception, not the rule.

That is also the exception, not the rule.

[Private Pickle]

That is also the exception, not the rule.

Nevertheless, their will is being imposed and the death of those children gave them the emotional ammo they needed to further an agenda they had prior to Sandy Hook.

[Chris]

Sowell has a good op-ed on the matter, Guns Save Lives (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/02/guns_save_lives_117747.html), in which he asks why aren't all the lives saved by guns being reported. They far outweigh lives lost.

[spunkloaf]

Nevertheless, their will is being imposed and the death of those children gave them the emotional ammo they needed to further an agenda they had prior to Sandy Hook.

Well, they probably feel as strongly about their cause as you do about yours. Eventually there is going to have to be a resolve. Antipathy is not going to help anybody get anywhere, though.

[Alif Qadr]

Looks like the Clinging to God and Guns was spot on

Cigar,
What is wrong with clinging to Allah and supporting the right to keep and bear arms? People like you, your president and others like unto you love to mock others, yet when the reality of your follies is presented to you, you like to play a game of constant denial. It does not matter what opinion polls state, the fact of the matter is that enshrined within the added fixtures of the Constitution for the United States, there lies the Second Amendment, explicitly stating that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (upon)". This means that as the amendment was originally ratified, it shall stand without any additions to it. This means that all of your silly little "gun control" laws are null and void because they are designed to infringe the Second Amendment.


in·fringe [/URL] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.verb (used with object)1.to commit a [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/breach"]breach (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) or infraction of; violate or transgress: [I]to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.


verb (used without object)2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.



Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in- (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in-)2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/break)

[Private Pickle]

Well, they probably feel as strongly about their cause as you do about yours. Eventually there is going to have to be a resolve. Antipathy is not going to help anybody get anywhere, though.

The difference being...I have a Constitutional Amendment backing me up...they have their emotions backing them up... And something tells me they have more antipathy for people who support gun rights than I have for them.

[spunkloaf]

The difference being...I have a Constitutional Amendment backing me up...they have their emotions backing them up... And something tells me they have more antipathy for people who support gun rights than I have for them.

No, they have just as much antipathy as you do. That "something" telling you otherwise is your ego.

[Private Pickle]

No, they have just as much antipathy as you do. That "something" telling you otherwise is your ego.

Perhaps but it really is besides the point isn't it?

[Captain Obvious]

The "gun control" debate is DOA for now.

[Private Pickle]

The "gun control" debate is DOA for now.

Until the next tragedy...the vultures are always circling.

[simpsonofpg]

After the noise died down after the shooting people are beginning to realize that the meansure being talked about will have little or no effect. Chicago is virtually a killling ground but none of the guns used are registered an the people who had the could never pass a back ground check. I think that one answer to make prison a reall hell hole instead of a great place to spend a few years with full room and board plus medical care. If they had to get up every morning at 6:00am and work all day so they would have something to eat attitudes about going to jail would change. My understanding here is Texas is that the kids see it has a badge of honork, tatoos and all.

[Captain Obvious]

Until the next tragedy...the vultures are always circling.

It's their bed to shit.

[jillian]

Just a question Cigar,

What in Obama's gun-control proposals would have stopped the tragedy at Sandy Hook ??

you mean aside from universal background checks and lower-capacity magazines.

nothing slows down a lunatic killer like making him re-load.

[Mister D]

you mean aside from universal background checks and lower-capacity magazines.

nothing slows down a lunatic killer like making him re-load.

Neither would have made a difference.

[jillian]

Neither would have made a difference.

i don't know how you can say that limiting the capacity of the magazines wouldn't have made a difference.

[jillian]

Until the next tragedy...the vultures are always circling.

there are always opportunists...

like neocons using 9/11 as an excuse for invading a country that didn't attack us.

[Chloe]

Neither would have made a difference.

No guns or no ammunition would definitely make a difference but unfortunately that's just not realistic for this country.

[Mister D]

i don't know how you can say that limiting the capacity of the magazines wouldn't have made a difference.

Because any trained gunman (Lanza was skilled) can reload rapidly. All of those people would still be dead.

[Mister D]

No guns or no ammunition would definitely make a difference but unfortunately that's just not realistic for this country.

I think ridiculous is the word you were looking for.

[jillian]

Because any trained gunman (Lanza was skilled) can reload rapidly. All of those people would still be dead.

rapidly...

but not as rapidly as not having to reload at all.

[Mister D]

rapidly...

but not as rapidly as not having to reload at all.

As I recall, he reloaded twice?

[Chloe]

I think ridiculous is the word you were looking for.

I know my view on guns is not at all normal when compared to most people but I also realize that my view on guns will probably never really happen as well. In my opinion guns and ammunition serve no other purpose besides creating danger and killing things, and if they all vanished from the Earth tomorrow i'd be a very happy girl, however, I know that won't happen but I can dream. In the mean time I do sincerely hope that it becomes harder for people to gain access to weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill.

[hanger4]

you mean aside from universal background checks


The guns were stolen jillian, how does a "universal background
check" stop a gun from being stollen ??





and lower-capacity magazines.


nothing slows down a lunatic killer like making him re-load.


You should bone up reload times.

[Private Pickle]

there are always opportunists...

like neocons using 9/11 as an excuse for invading a country that didn't attack us.

I think that's a popular theory but I would bet good money you couldn't produce an actual example.

[Private Pickle]

As I recall, he reloaded twice?

I thought it was five times... He ended up reloading his mags before running out of ammo...a product of his excessive gaming.

[Private Pickle]

I know my view on guns is not at all normal when compared to most people but I also realize that my view on guns will probably never really happen as well. In my opinion guns and ammunition serve no other purpose besides creating danger and killing things, and if they all vanished from the Earth tomorrow i'd be a very happy girl, however, I know that won't happen but I can dream. In the mean time I do sincerely hope that it becomes harder for people to gain access to weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill.

Guns don't kill people.

[Mister D]

I thought it was five times... He ended up reloading his mags before running out of ammo...a product of his excessive gaming.

In any case, the point is that a trained gunman will have no problem reloading rapidly particularly if no one is shooting back. .

[Chloe]

Guns don't kill people.

Oh I know, people do, but guns just make it easier for them. Guns make most people feel bigger, stronger, braver, and more capable of taking on a goal.

[Private Pickle]

In any case, the point is that a trained gunman will have no problem reloading rapidly particularly if no one is shooting back. .

Correct. And the fact that he reloaded prior to his needing to shows that he didn't need the capacity he had...

[Private Pickle]

Oh I know, people do, but guns just make it easier for them. Guns make most people feel bigger, stronger, braver, and more capable of taking on a goal.

Like defending themselves?

[Chloe]

Like defending themselves?

Sure, guns probably easily help someone feel more confident in defending themselves just as it would a criminal robbing a gas station, but if neither had a gun then it would all be moot.

[Private Pickle]

Sure, guns probably easily help someone feel more confident in defending themselves just as it would a criminal robbing a gas station, but if neither had a gun then it would all be moot.

You can only defend yourself with a gun if you're being assaulted with a gun?

[Chloe]

You can only defend yourself with a gun if you're being assaulted with a gun?

No i'm sorry that's not what I meant I don't think. I just meant that yes people would probably feel more confident in defending themselves if they have a gun since a gun increases the chance of injuring, scaring, or killing the person who is trying to hurt you, but guns do that for anybody holding it including the criminal that uses it to commit a crime or hurt someone. If the gun didn't exist then the criminal couldn't use it to commit a violent crime. My main point was that a gun boosts someones confidence regardless of their intentions, good or bad, and so if that weapon can do so much to encourage someone to do something beyond what they would normally have the courage to do then that weapon is more impactful than people think. Does that make sense?

[Private Pickle]

No i'm sorry that's not what I meant I don't think. I just meant that yes people would probably feel more confident in defending themselves if they have a gun since a gun increases the chance of injuring, scaring, or killing the person who is trying to hurt you, but guns do that for anybody holding it including the criminal that uses it to commit a crime or hurt someone. If the gun didn't exist then the criminal couldn't use it to commit a violent crime. My main point was that a gun boosts someones confidence regardless of their intentions, good or bad, and so if that weapon can do so much to encourage someone to do something beyond what they would normally have the courage to do then that weapon is more impactful than people think. Does that make sense?

It does. I personally don't think that we should restrict the rights of people because of how a criminal may behave. Religion has been used as a weapon of mass destruction for thousands of years and still is to this day but no one is talking about banning that. There is no inherent danger with guns...I agree that we need to be diligent within reason to who can own a firearm, but taking the rights away from the vast majority of gun owners because of what a tiny fraction does just simply doesn't compute with me.

In addition, my rights are so extremely important to me that I will fight to keep them. I think when people hear a statement like that they either say or think to themselves "well you're going to lose then and die" or something along those lines. But is that really logical? To so readily be willing to kill in order to stop people from killing? I'm not saying you think that way of course...just making a point.

[Chloe]

It does. I personally don't think that we should restrict the rights of people because of how a criminal may behave. Religion has been used as a weapon of mass destruction for thousands of years and still is to this day but no one is talking about banning that. There is no inherent danger with guns...I agree that we need to be diligent within reason to who can own a firearm, but taking the rights away from the vast majority of gun owners because of what a tiny fraction does just simply doesn't compute with me.

In addition, my rights are so extremely important to me that I will fight to keep them. I think when people hear a statement like that they either say or think to themselves "well you're going to lose then and die" or something along those lines. But is that really logical? To so readily be willing to kill in order to stop people from killing? I'm not saying you think that way of course...just making a point.

I'll be very honest with you I would personally get rid of the second amendment if I were dictator of the world but obviously i'm not and obviously that won't happen and I don't want to be dictator of the world, so it doesn't matter I guess, but since I can't get rid of the 2nd amendment I at least think that the gun population should be dramatically reduced. The more guns that are produced and out in circulation the more opportunity there will be for people to use them for violent reasons. I understand that it would also dramatically reduce the opportunity for good people to use them for whatever they want to use them for but I think that the end result is more important, to me at least. I completely understand that people aren't going to willingly just give up all of their guns and that stores and people will just stop selling them, but I can hope.

[Mister D]

I'll be very honest with you I would personally get rid of the second amendment if I were dictator of the world but obviously i'm not and obviously that won't happen and I don't want to be dictator of the world, so it doesn't matter I guess, but since I can't get rid of the 2nd amendment I at least think that the gun population should be dramatically reduced. The more guns that are produced and out in circulation the more opportunity there will be for people to use them for violent reasons. I understand that it would also dramatically reduce the opportunity for good people to use them for whatever they want to use them for but I think that the end result is more important, to me at least. I completely understand that people aren't going to willingly just give up all of their guns and that stores and people will just stop selling them, but I can hope.

Why not reach some kind of rapprochement with the world as it is? There are far too many guns in circulation for your hopes to be realistic.

[Chloe]

Why not reach some kind of rapprochement with the world as it is? There are far too many guns in circulation for your hopes to be realistic.

I'm sorry but what does rapprochement mean?

I know that there are too many guns out there right now to remove or destroy but that doesn't mean that all of the parts for the guns or the ammunition for the guns produced couldn't be stopped or dramatically slowed too I guess. I don't really know how I'd accomplish my hopes but it's just something that I'd personally like to see one day.

[Private Pickle]

I'll be very honest with you I would personally get rid of the second amendment if I were dictator of the world but obviously i'm not and obviously that won't happen and I don't want to be dictator of the world, so it doesn't matter I guess, but since I can't get rid of the 2nd amendment I at least think that the gun population should be dramatically reduced. The more guns that are produced and out in circulation the more opportunity there will be for people to use them for violent reasons. I understand that it would also dramatically reduce the opportunity for good people to use them for whatever they want to use them for but I think that the end result is more important, to me at least. I completely understand that people aren't going to willingly just give up all of their guns and that stores and people will just stop selling them, but I can hope.

I understand. I suppose we haven't "needed" the 2nd Amendment for so long people have forgotten or maybe take it for granted, the reason we we have it. I also believe that people will desperately wished they had supported it when they no longer have it and truly need it. I believe history can and will repeat itself with regards to oppressive governments and this country is far from immune.

by the way...what's your take on abortion? Kidding! I kid!

[Mister D]

I'm sorry but what does rapprochement mean?

I know that there are too many guns out there right now to remove or destroy but that doesn't mean that all of the parts for the guns or the ammunition for the guns produced couldn't be stopped or dramatically slowed too I guess. I don't really know how I'd accomplish my hopes but it's just something that I'd personally like to see one day.

Accommodation or reconciliation.

My tenant/friend just told me a story of his boyhood in Hungary. The Soviet army had a deadline sometime in 1990 to leave (this was right after the Berlin Wall fell) and they were selling their weapons for a few American dollars. I'm mentioning this because 1) it was pretty interesting and 2) it hints at how much hardware is out there.

[Chloe]

I understand. I suppose we haven't "needed" the 2nd Amendment for so long people have forgotten or maybe take it for granted, the reason we we have it. I also believe that people will desperately wished they had supported it when they no longer have it and truly need it. I believe history can and will repeat itself with regards to oppressive governments and this country is far from immune.

by the way...what's your take on abortion? Kidding! I kid!

Hmmm. Abort the 2nd amendment perhaps?

[Private Pickle]

Hmmm. Abort the 2nd amendment perhaps?

All kidding aside...if you do that you will have blood in the streets of this country. Honest question: would repealing the 2nd Amendment be worth the bloodshed that would inevitably result?

[Chloe]

All kidding aside...if you do that you will have blood in the streets of this country. Honest question: would repealing the 2nd Amendment be worth the bloodshed that would inevitably result?

Honest answer yes, but I say that with the belief that it wouldn't be as bad as people think in my opinion. Guns are important to people sure but their lives and way of life are more important in my opinion. If a person becomes violent because of a new amendment against the 2nd amendment then they would risk losing their livelihood and family as well as their guns. I personally think that the vast majority of Americans would rather have dinner with their family tonight then risk being imprisoned over a passion for their shotgun. I could be way wrong too.

[Private Pickle]

Honest answer yes, but I say that with the belief that it wouldn't be as bad as people think in my opinion. Guns are important to people sure but their lives and way of life are more important in my opinion. If a person becomes violent because of a new amendment against the 2nd amendment then they would risk losing their livelihood and family as well as their guns. I personally think that the vast majority of Americans would rather have dinner with their family tonight then risk being imprisoned over a passion for their shotgun. I could be way wrong too.

What % of gun owners do you think would fight?

[Chloe]

What % of gun owners do you think would fight?

I don't really know i'm sorry. Maybe 1-3%? I think the ones that would actually fight and commit violent acts in response would be people with nothing to lose, no families, no real established way of life, and so on. I don't think the typical person with a family, job, home, education and so on would throw it all away for their gun collection in my opinion.

[Private Pickle]

I don't really know i'm sorry. Maybe 1-3%? I think the ones that would actually fight and commit violent acts in response would be people with nothing to lose, no families, no real established way of life, and so on. I don't think the typical person with a family, job, home, education and so on would throw it all away for their gun collection in my opinion.

Lets say 1%.


1% of 100,000,000 is 1,000,000.


To put that in perspective the Iraqi insurgency was estimated at 40,000.


Now personally I think that is a conservative # and I will tell you why. Americans have an inherent zeal for their Freedom. Many of us believe that we would be letting our families down to let them live in a country without Freedom. I would gladly give up my life to fight for what I believe is worth fighting for...not in spite of my family...but for my family.


We are talking about law abiding people here...not criminals..Americans that you would sacrifice to save other Americans from criminal behavior. That doesn't sound the least bit off to you?

[Chloe]

Lets say 1%.


1% of 100,000,000 is 1,000,000.


To put that in perspective the Iraqi insurgency was estimated at 40,000.


Now personally I think that is a conservative # and I will tell you why. Americans have an inherent zeal for their Freedom. Many of us believe that we would be letting our families down to let them live in a country without Freedom. I would gladly give up my life to fight for what I believe is worth fighting for...not in spite of my family...but for my family.


We are talking about law abiding people here...not criminals..Americans that you would sacrifice to save other Americans from criminal behavior. That doesn't sound the least bit off to you?

I guess it does sound a little bit off

[Private Pickle]

I guess it does sound a little bit off

It's an interesting concept. I do understand your point of view. I really do. Personally I too wish people would treat each other with the minimal respect required so guns wouldn't be necessary. I just don't think that will ever be a reality.

[zelmo1234]

I do disagree with the president on the urgency of more gun control, and I disagree with the president on banning assault weapons. I agree that something should be addressed in regards to the gun violence that has been carried out. I just don't know what.

Here would be a great thing to start with!

How about prosicuting the laws that we have instead of letting criminals walk so they can comit more cries and further your agenda!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosecutions-under-obama-down-more-than-45-percent/article/2516175

Next I think that not selling AK 47 by the thousands to the most dangerious criminals in north america would be a good Idea!

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/fast-furious-scandal-details-emerge-us-government-armed/story?id=17352694

You see the Presidnet has tried to do whatever he can to get Gun violence high to further his agenda. Instead of putting peoples lives first. He is using them like pawns.

YOu know that his home town of Chicago has some of the monst restrictive laws in the nation, and is a war zone. with multiple Gun murders each and every day? Yet you never here him of our friends like Cigar bring it up.

[zelmo1234]

you mean aside from universal background checks and lower-capacity magazines.

nothing slows down a lunatic killer like making him re-load.

Yep it woudl have taken him an additional 5 seconds, and because of the breaks in fire would have likely allow him a chance for better sight alighment!

Here is how long it takes to reload a weapon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lii1mrsT6D4

Notice that after the change their is a re-alignment and adressing of the target!

So using you example and know in sandy hook one child was dying about every 10 seconds you might have possible saved 1 child, which would be worth it, except when you take inot account re alighment of the site picture, and realize that there most likely would have been more people dead.

NOW IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THIS IDIOT KILLED HIMSELF AT THE SOUND OF AN OPPOSING FORCE.

IMAGINE HOW MANY LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF THE PRINCIPLE THAT DIED A HEROS DEATH BY TROWING HERSELF AT THE SHOOTER WOULD AHVE HAD A GUN AND BE ABLE TO KILL THE SHOOTER!

NOW THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED LIVES. SO THAT IS WHAT WE SHOUDL DO RIGHT????? not if you are a liberal, because if you are a liberal, it has nothing to do with saving the lives of children. they could give a shit about that. It is about the disarmerment of the population for political reasons.

[zelmo1234]

Oh I know, people do, but guns just make it easier for them. Guns make most people feel bigger, stronger, braver, and more capable of taking on a goal.

Better ban fertilizer too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing He was a little more deadly and he never had to reload!

[zelmo1234]

Sure, guns probably easily help someone feel more confident in defending themselves just as it would a criminal robbing a gas station, but if neither had a gun then it would all be moot.

What happens when the crimnal gets to keep his gun, and the cas station owner is forced to turn his in?

Here is a little hint! look at the murder statistices for Chigao, DC, Detroit, LA, Mobil AL. and NY.

Also why is it that gun violence is higher in gun free zones. Don't these criminals know that the are breaking the Law.

Maybe we just need to educate the criminals on what is illegal.

[zelmo1234]

I don't really know i'm sorry. Maybe 1-3%? I think the ones that would actually fight and commit violent acts in response would be people with nothing to lose, no families, no real established way of life, and so on. I don't think the typical person with a family, job, home, education and so on would throw it all away for their gun collection in my opinion.

Well I am educated, have a family, and love dinner! And I would fight. So would my old crew, that works for me still and worked for me in Afganistan and Iraq. And so would most of the people that complete my advanced training programs, meaning that infact they ahve more training that the ATF agensts that would come to their home, which has been prepared for such an enent to disarm them?

So the best way to deal with the 300 thousand or so folks that are trained is to exicute them in the street!

Because if you try and take them out in there own turf you are looking at about 4 to 7 agesnts for every "terrorist" a that is what they will call us at that point.

acceptable losses for disarming america is about 750 thousand people. And remeber that you are going to have these gun toting nut jobs looking to take out vengence on those that passed and supported the laws that make them criminals. So with NO guns who will protect those people.

So if you are OK with more than half a million of you fellow and once law abiding citizens being guned down in the streets in the name of the greater good, then I think you shoudl proceed with your wishes.

If not then you should actually visit a gun range and learn what the shooting sports and what real and responsible gun owners are actually all about, who knows you might just have a good time in the process.

[Private Pickle]

Well I am educated, have a family, and love dinner! And I would fight. So would my old crew, that works for me still and worked for me in Afganistan and Iraq. And so would most of the people that complete my advanced training programs, meaning that infact they ahve more training that the ATF agensts that would come to their home, which has been prepared for such an enent to disarm them?

So the best way to deal with the 300 thousand or so folks that are trained is to exicute them in the street!

Because if you try and take them out in there own turf you are looking at about 4 to 7 agesnts for every "terrorist" a that is what they will call us at that point.

acceptable losses for disarming america is about 750 thousand people. And remeber that you are going to have these gun toting nut jobs looking to take out vengence on those that passed and supported the laws that make them criminals. So with NO guns who will protect those people.

So if you are OK with more than half a million of you fellow and once law abiding citizens being guned down in the streets in the name of the greater good, then I think you shoudl proceed with your wishes.

If not then you should actually visit a gun range and learn what the shooting sports and what real and responsible gun owners are actually all about, who knows you might just have a good time in the process.

I think Chloe's point was that the world would be a better place if we didn't have the need for guns and I agree with her...who wouldn't? She made it pretty clear it was just her wish and she is realistic about the prospect of that actually happening.

[Chris]

you mean aside from universal background checks and lower-capacity magazines.

nothing slows down a lunatic killer like making him re-load.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTZDmQMI7Do

[jillian]

Yep it woudl have taken him an additional 5 seconds, and because of the breaks in fire would have likely allow him a chance for better sight alighment!

Here is how long it takes to reload a weapon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lii1mrsT6D4

Notice that after the change their is a re-alignment and adressing of the target!

So using you example and know in sandy hook one child was dying about every 10 seconds you might have possible saved 1 child, which would be worth it, except when you take inot account re alighment of the site picture, and realize that there most likely would have been more people dead.

NOW IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THIS IDIOT KILLED HIMSELF AT THE SOUND OF AN OPPOSING FORCE.

IMAGINE HOW MANY LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF THE PRINCIPLE THAT DIED A HEROS DEATH BY TROWING HERSELF AT THE SHOOTER WOULD AHVE HAD A GUN AND BE ABLE TO KILL THE SHOOTER!

NOW THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED LIVES. SO THAT IS WHAT WE SHOUDL DO RIGHT????? not if you are a liberal, because if you are a liberal, it has nothing to do with saving the lives of children. they could give a shit about that. It is about the disarmerment of the population for political reasons.

i know how to reload a weapon. and there has been more than one mass murderer stopped when he went to reload.

there is no reason to have clips that hold 30 rounds. you have no constitutionally protected right to possess clips that hold 30 rounds.

[patrickt]

I was arguing with our City Council once and a man stood up in the audience and said he agreed with me. He was a well-known nut and I said, "He does not agree with me." It would help the liberals if they didn't have people like Chris Mathrews, Nancy Pelosi, Mister Ed, and Michael Moore agreeing with them.

[jillian]

I was arguing with our City Council once and a man stood up in the audience and said he agreed with me. He was a well-known nut and I said, "He does not agree with me." It would help the liberals if they didn't have people like Chris Mathrews, Nancy Pelosi, Mister Ed, and Michael Moore agreeing with them.

perhaps. by the same token, the right has michelle bachman, sharron angle, christine o'donnel, glen beck, annie coultergeist, akins and mourdock

and let's not forget the wackos ted nugent, and wayne lapierre...

and that doesn't even begin to plunge the depths of lunacy found in people like orly taitz.

so be careful of those stones you're tossing around. we all have our crosses to bear.

[Ivan88]

So what if 80% want to steal the rights, lives and property of the other 20%?

That is what democracy does; Hypes up a bunch of yahoos to support whatever thing the elite super rich want them to.

But, America is supposed to be a place where Man is king of his castle and officialdom is his servant. And, in such an America some nebulous Marxist majority is not allowed to trample on the rights and lives of the individual American Man.

Now, we've all heard the political gurus in schools, college, TV etc. whining at us that we consented to be governed.
Well if 60% of the population has consented to be governed, they should go ahead and be governed. They should dis-arm immediately.

But the rest of Americans who have NOT consented to being governed, should not be threatened by those who have.

2239
The essence of democracy

[Ivan88]

i know how to reload a weapon. and there has been more than one mass murderer stopped when he went to reload.

there is no reason to have clips that hold 30 rounds. you have no constitutionally protected right to possess clips that hold 30 rounds.

jillian is correct IF the American people have consented to be governed.

The 1774 Declaration of of Rights says that the American People never consented to be governed.

So those who consented to be governed should dis-arm immediately.
And those who have not consented to be governed should recognize that those who seek their helplessness in dis-armament are their enemies lusting to plunder them.

Under Saddam Hussein, the Iraq people had the right to bear any arm they could afford. Under the genius Marxist USA, they had no right to bear arms and they got this:
2240
Suffering, torture, misery, and death; Ain't the genius USers wonderful?

[Seriy]

The Second Amendment means our rights to bear arms. Shut up liberals !

[Private Pickle]

i know how to reload a weapon. and there has been more than one mass murderer stopped when he went to reload.

there is no reason to have clips that hold 30 rounds. you have no constitutionally protected right to possess clips that hold 30 rounds.

There is no reason a law abiding citizen should not have them.

Guns that take mags require them for their normal function.

[BB-35]

What in the Seat Belt Legislation requirement required in Automobiles would have saved Jimmy Dean?

Jimmy dean didn't wear his seat belt?

Here and I always thought the saugage did him in...

[Bigred1cav]

The Second Amendment means our rights to bear arms. Shut up liberals !

After being well regulated.

[hanger4]

After being well regulated.

Militia and People are not synonymous.

[simpsonofpg]

I think that we need to ask the gun owners what their solution is. We want one as much as anyone and more than most. We don't like be vilified by everyone with an opinion. I am guessing since I don't know the facts that gun ownership is way below 50% of the population. Does anyone know.

[hanger4]

I think that we need to ask the gun owners what their solution is. We want one as much as anyone and more than most. We don't like be vilified by everyone with an opinion. I am guessing since I don't know the facts that gun ownership is way below 50% of the population. Does anyone know.

You're not far off. This site may help;

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Chris]

After being well regulated.

You may regulate the militia all you want, keep in mind "regulate" then meant well-functioning.

[BB-35]

After being well regulated.
Not a requirement

[BB-35]

i know how to reload a weapon. and there has been more than one mass murderer stopped when he went to reload.

there is no reason to have clips that hold 30 rounds. you have no constitutionally protected right to possess clips that hold 30 rounds.
no 'clips' hold 30 rounds,and who made you God?....you don't get to decide what I 'need'

[hanger4]

no 'clips' hold 30 rounds,and who made you God?....you don't get to decide what I 'need'

Sure there are;


30 round magazine ar-15 (https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=30+round+magazine+ar-15&oq=30+round+magazine+&gs_l=hp.1.2.0i20l2j0l2.17490.17490.2.23597.1.1.0.0 .0.0.125.125.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.cDeAA1BK2sg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmQ&fp=1fa1ca819eb382cf&biw=1593&bih=766)

[Chloe]

Couldn't the "militia" mentioned in the declaration just mean what we would consider today to be something like the national guard? Why does it have to be millions of citizens with arsenals in their closets and gun collections?

[hanger4]

Couldn't the "militia" mentioned in the declaration just mean what we would consider today to be something like the national guard? Why does it have to be millions of citizens with arsenals in their closets and gun collections?

Actually it's the http://www.usconstitution.com/


Amendment II

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.

[Chloe]

Actually it's the http://www.usconstitution.com/


Amendment II

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.

oh I meant the constitution

[Chris]

Couldn't the "militia" mentioned in the declaration just mean what we would consider today to be something like the national guard? Why does it have to be millions of citizens with arsenals in their closets and gun collections?

Militia then was all local able-bodied men, and some women. The National Guard is different.

[Chloe]

I personally think that the main reason support for gun control is falling is because once a tragedy is no longer fresh in our minds or on the news every day people lose interest and move on. It's kind of sad in my opinion. Also once Washington DC gets involved it pretty much means it will just be talked about a lot but ultimately ignored. I think if towns and cities across the country passed rules against gun sales and things like that then maybe you'd see a sincere shift in our gun culture. Guns are weapons that weren't created for good reasons other than to kill things, and no amount of sugar coating its purpose is ever going to change that fact in my opinion. I get it that people have hobbies that involve guns but is your hobby more important than the safety of everybody? I think if each gun owner sacrificed a portion of their weapons and made sincere efforts to not encourage or buy into the gun business then maybe in 20 years guns will be looked at as something of the past. I realize that will probably never happen since so many people out there love their guns like it actually has meaning and worth but I can dream.

That's my rant

[BB-35]

Sure there are;


30 round magazine ar-15 (https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=30+round+magazine+ar-15&oq=30+round+magazine+&gs_l=hp.1.2.0i20l2j0l2.17490.17490.2.23597.1.1.0.0 .0.0.125.125.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.cDeAA1BK2sg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmQ&fp=1fa1ca819eb382cf&biw=1593&bih=766)

<sigh> THIS is a 'clip
2248

THIS is a magazine
2249


Any questions?

[hanger4]

I personally think that the main reason support for gun control is falling is because once a tragedy is no longer fresh in our minds or on the news every day people lose interest and move on. It's kind of sad in my opinion. Also once Washington DC gets involved it pretty much means it will just be talked about a lot but ultimately ignored. I think if towns and cities across the country passed rules against gun sales and things like that then maybe you'd see a sincere shift in our gun culture. Guns are weapons that weren't created for good reasons other than to kill things, and no amount of sugar coating its purpose is ever going to change that fact in my opinion. I get it that people have hobbies that involve guns but is your hobby more important than the safety of everybody? I think if each gun owner sacrificed a portion of their weapons and made sincere efforts to not encourage or buy into the gun business then maybe in 20 years guns will be looked at as something of the past. I realize that will probably never happen since so many people out there love their guns like it actually has meaning and worth but I can dream.

That's my rant

Partly, also the informed see that all the gun legislation that has been proposed since Sandy Hook would not have stopped it from happening.

Chloe, the highest gun crime rates are in cities that ban guns.

I also have the right to defend myself

Of course it's not going to happen, criminals will ALWAYS have guns.

[Chloe]

Partly, also the informed see that all the gun legislation that has been proposed since Sandy Hook would not have stopped it from happening.

Chloe, the highest gun crime rates are in cities that ban guns.

I also have the right to defend myself

Of course it's not going to happen, criminals will ALWAYS have guns.

Well the highest gun crime rates being in cities makes sense though since that's where the most people are. Rural gun crimes will probably never compete with a big cities gun crime rates. As for the sandy hook thing it could have been prevented if guns were regulated to the point that i'd like to see it regulated but that won't happen :)

[Peter1469]

Well the highest gun crime rates being in cities makes sense though since that's where the most people are. Rural gun crimes will probably never compete with a big cities gun crime rates. As for the sandy hook thing it could have been prevented if guns were regulated to the point that i'd like to see it regulated but that won't happen :)

Right, it won't happen.

[hanger4]

Well the highest gun crime rates being in cities makes sense though since that's where the most people are. Rural gun crimes will probably never compete with a big cities gun crime rates. As for the sandy hook thing it could have been prevented if guns were regulated to the point that i'd like to see it regulated but that won't happen :)

And most legal guns are in rural areas, so the gun is not the problem.

[Chloe]

Right, it won't happen.

Well maybe one day but not anytime soon probably

[Peter1469]

Well maybe one day but not anytime soon probably


It will never happen in the US. To many people on both sides of the political spectrum realize that guns are not the real issue. It is nuts and criminals that are the issue. If you can't get rid of them, normal people will demand to be armed.

[hanger4]

<sigh> THIS is a 'clip
2248

THIS is a magazine
2249


Any questions?

I know that BB, but most don't know the difference so it's easier

to just correct them as I did.

You know the difference so nevermind.

[Chloe]

And most legal guns are in rural areas, so the gun is not the problem.

May I ask you a hypothetical question? Say if a law were passed mandating that only certain bullets and certain guns could be manufactured starting tomorrow, like maybe three options or something, and only the parts for those specific guns could be made and so on. Eventually wouldn't those illegal guns run out of bullets and be rendered useless?

[Peter1469]

May I ask you a hypothetical question? Say if a law were passed mandating that only certain bullets and certain guns could be manufactured starting tomorrow, like maybe three options or something, and only the parts for those specific guns could be made and so on. Eventually wouldn't those illegal guns run out of bullets and be rendered useless?

Like alcohol was unavailable during prohibition? :wink:

Once you have the gun, you can make your own ammo if needed. It isn't hard.

[Chloe]

Like alcohol was unavailable during prohibition? :wink:

Once you have the gun, you can make your own ammo if needed. It isn't hard.

but do you really think a bunch of gang members are going to sit around making bullets? and plus where would they get all of the things needed to make it if only certain types of them are being made? It's not like you can reuse a bullet that's been shot you know?

[hanger4]

May I ask you a hypothetical question? Say if a law were passed mandating that only certain bullets and certain guns could be manufactured starting tomorrow, like maybe three options or something, and only the parts for those specific guns could be made and so on. Eventually wouldn't those illegal guns run out of bullets and be rendered useless?


No the black market would take over.

God I love reading your posts.

You're so refreshing naive, I don't mean that in a condescending or critical way.

Just reminds me of all conversations about life and stuff my daughters and I had.

[Chloe]

No the black market would take over.

God I love reading your posts.

You're so refreshing naive, I don't mean that in a condescending or critical way.

Just reminds me of all conversations about life and stuff my daughters and I had.

The black market couldn't possibly be as big and as efficient as the current businesses that create and sell ammunition though, and if that's the case then more laws or regulations or what have you could be created and placed on that sort of stuff to help reduce it as well. I mean basically the way things are working now obviously is not working, right? I mean it's not like gun crimes are dropping in huge numbers and people are feeling safer walking around cities or even random back roads somewhere. I just don't think that adding millions of more guns to normal citizens is going to help since some of those people could still do crazy things after they qualify for their gun, thousands if not millions of guns could get sold or lost during that time, and so on. If people are using guns to commit crimes then logic says if there are fewer guns then there will be fewer gun crimes.

Also thank you for your last comments but now i'm never going to know if my opinions are considered naive or legitimate. :sad:

[hanger4]

The black market couldn't possibly be as big and as efficient as the current businesses that create and sell ammunition though, and if that's the case then more laws or regulations or what have you could be created and placed on that sort of stuff to help reduce it as well. I mean basically the way things are working now obviously is not working, right? I mean it's not like gun crimes are dropping in huge numbers and people are feeling safer walking around cities or even random back roads somewhere. I just don't think that adding millions of more guns to normal citizens is going to help since some of those people could still do crazy things after they qualify for their gun, thousands if not millions of guns could get sold or lost during that time, and so on. If people are using guns to commit crimes then logic says if there are fewer guns then there will be fewer gun crimes.

Also thank you for your last comments but now i'm never going to know if my opinions are considered naive or legitimate. :sad:

You would be correct restrictive gun control only works on law abiding citizens.

BTW, all of your opinions are legitimate Chloe, don't ever think they're not.

They way be wrong or naive but never illegitimate. LOL

[Peter1469]

The black market couldn't possibly be as big and as efficient as the current businesses that create and sell ammunition though, and if that's the case then more laws or regulations or what have you could be created and placed on that sort of stuff to help reduce it as well. I mean basically the way things are working now obviously is not working, right? I mean it's not like gun crimes are dropping in huge numbers and people are feeling safer walking around cities or even random back roads somewhere. I just don't think that adding millions of more guns to normal citizens is going to help since some of those people could still do crazy things after they qualify for their gun, thousands if not millions of guns could get sold or lost during that time, and so on. If people are using guns to commit crimes then logic says if there are fewer guns then there will be fewer gun crimes.

Also thank you for your last comments but now i'm never going to know if my opinions are considered naive or legitimate. :sad:

Chloe drinking went up during prohibition, not down.

[BB-35]

I know that BB, but most don't know the difference so it's easier

to just correct them as I did.

You know the difference so nevermind.

Gotcha!:grin:

[BB-35]

Making guns in pakistani shops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-m8YP26AQE

[Chris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

Skip to about 2 minutes in.

[Seriy]

The Liberal Left knows well that gun control is to help their fellows criminals to kill more decent people. But most goals of the Left is to disarm people in order to establish a totalitarian communist state, so the people will not be able to resist the government as people couldn't resist Joseph Stalin's regime in Soviet Russia.

[truthmatters]

you are one who would look the sandyhook families in the face and spit at them.

good thing 91% of Americans think your a ghoul

[nic34]

The Liberal Left knows well that gun control is to help their fellows criminals to kill more decent people. But most goals of the Left is to disarm people in order to establish a totalitarian communist state, so the people will not be able to resist the government as people couldn't resist Joseph Stalin's regime in Soviet Russia.

Full of that rightwing Amerikan Fox News hate propaganda are't you comrade? :flag:

[truthmatters]

they jsut deny all the facts that have been collected on gun control and safer humans

[BB-35]

you are one who would look the sandyhook families in the face and spit at them.

good thing 91% of Americans think your a ghoul

91% now?.......<eyeroll> you still can't get 91% of Americans to agree on anything

And you're rolling in their blood...So don't act so pious

[Mainecoons]

I'm still waiting for one of these liberal geniuses to explain in a competent and credible manner how this is going to work any better than our government's wildly unsuccessful "war on drugs."

Don't all fight to be first now, y'all hear? :rofl: