Give up my guns?

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

The insane paranoia of a few gun nuts should not compromise the safety of the vast majority of the citizens that are not paranoid gun nuts. Period.

The majority of gun owners are current and ex military, current and ex police officers, sportsmen, and target shooters. In other words, the best of our citizens. Drug dealers and other criminals who commit felonies are not going to worry about a few gun laws. Those people are the gun nuts. Terrorists too.. After all, these groups have been importing illegal drugs and weapons into this country for some time now, right? Even if all guns were removed from stores and law abiding citizen hands, the criminals who use them to kill the vast majority of people in the United States would still have their guns. Keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a integral part of our Consitution, heritage, and national security.

Any laws that infringe upon gun ownership right must be opposed vigorously. Remember, the anti 2nd Amendment Party has supported false accusers, ANTIFA, Smollett and other criminals by removing bail requirements for many cases. The actions of the Democrats have given us increased reason why gun ownership is even more important now than it was in the past.

 

[futurecurrents]

The majority of gun owners are current and ex military, current and ex police officers, sportsmen, and target shooters. In other words, the best of our citizens. Drug dealers and other criminals who commit felonies are not going to worry about a few gun laws. Those people are the gun nuts. Terrorists too.. After all, these groups have been importing illegal drugs and weapons into this country for some time now, right? Even if all guns were removed from stores and law abiding citizen hands, the criminals who use them to kill the vast majority of people in the United States would still have their guns. Keeping guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a integral part of our Consitution, heritage, and national security.

Any laws that infringe upon gun ownership right must be opposed vigorously. Remember, the anti 2nd Amendment Party has supported false accusers, ANTIFA, Smollett and other criminals by removing bail requirements for many cases. The actions of the Democrats have given us increased reason why gun ownership is even more important now than it was in the past.

I'm not talking about banning all guns.

Carrying in public everywhere like tsing does is ridiculous. Only the paranoid irrational gun nuts and turkeys with small dicks think that that is necessary.

 

[Cuddles]

Yes, it does. As long as they don't already have access to it before you prevent them. Duh.

If you put up a wall around something to prevent people from coming in, and they are already inside then it doesn't work very well, does it? Like trying to ban guns after they already have them.

The wall works on people who aren't yet inside. Are you actually this fucking stupid?

Why don't you take your front door off the hinges of your house because it doesn't keep people out?

There are millions of cars out there, ergo regulating the emissions of new cars is futile.

I've admitted many times that you would eventually have less guns if you banned them - but over the course of decades. .

Strict firearm regulation post Columbine would not have put a dent on today's ownership because decades.

 

[Cuddles]

And banning them would have no effect whatsoever.

Yes, it does. As long as they don't already have access to it before you prevent them. Duh.

If you put up a wall around something to prevent people from coming in, and they are already inside then it doesn't work very well, does it? Like trying to ban guns after they already have them.

The wall works on people who aren't yet inside. Are you actually this fucking stupid?

Why don't you take your front door off the hinges of your house because it doesn't keep people out?

Says banning them would have no effect whatsoever.
Admits banning them would keep those without weapons/mags from having easy access by drawing on the analogy that people outside a wall have no access.
Calls me stupid.

 

[Nine_Ender]

Says banning them would have no effect whatsoever.
Admits banning them would keep those without weapons/mags from having easy access by drawing on the analogy that people outside a wall have no access.
Calls me stupid.

Tsing Tao isn't an intelligent man he's just some moron who fears the world and likes hanging around shooting ranges for a hobby. There is a better then average chance that either he or a close family member gets shot at some point which is kind of sad but just a good example why the US needs to reverse course on gun policy soon. A civilized nation can't let the more uneducated or misguided elements of their society to dictate these kind of policies.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

I'm not talking about banning all guns.

Carrying in public everywhere like tsing does is ridiculous. Only the paranoid irrational gun nuts and turkeys with small dicks think that that is necessary.

We are better off when more citizens carry. It makes terrorist attacks on nightclubs more dangerous. For the terrorists. It makes drive by shootings by gangs more dangerous. For the gangs. National security is enhanced when there are millions of civilians who own guns and there is a large infrastructure that supplies ammunition, guns, and gun parts.

There are no valid reasons that overcome the importance of our Constitutional right to bear arms and the obvious intent of our country's Forefathers.

Let's talk about how Democrats are concerned about dozens of school children deaths by school shooters per year while they promote legislation that advocates killing hundreds of thousands late term or partial birth babies each year. Let's talk about more children dying each year in school busses that have no seat belts than school shooting deaths. Let's talk about how more children die year year from flat screen TVs falling on them than school shooting deaths. Let's talk about drug related and gang gun crime caused deaths in school children versus school shooting deaths. Democrats by their legislative history obviously do not care about safety or lives. They care about their own power above all else. That and the likes of ANTIFA on the loose make unrestricted gun ownership by citizens even more compelling.

The real problem is substance abuse and the criminal element that enables it. Our focus should be dealing with that problem and not trying to remove or restrict gun ownership rights from law abiding citizens who happen to include retired millitary and police officers.

 

[Tsing Tao]

There are millions of cars out there, ergo regulating the emissions of new cars is futile.

Regulation of the emissions of cars is done through the manufacture of these cars. Cars built prior to these emission standards are not held to the same standards. I have not seen one argument against regulating the function of new guns manufactured. The argument I am countering is about banning firearms, and how that will not work. If you wish to change the manufacture of future firearms with some quality to make them safer, I am all for it. But you'd have to accept that guns made prior wouldn't be subject to the same restrictions in order for your ridiculous car analogy to hold up.

Strict firearm regulation post Columbine would not have put a dent on today's ownership because decades.

Ah, the ol' "if we had done this, it would have worked". Reminds me of the whole "shovel ready" argument on the jobless rate. "Had we not spent the money, it would have looked like this."

You have no idea what impact "strict firearm regulation" would have had on the above chart (which was primarily driven by the belief that Obama was going to try to regulate guns). Any laws put in place would simply have spiked the line earlier on the time scale as people bought guns in a frenzy to get ahead of the ban. Just like every other time such a law was feared.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Says banning them would have no effect whatsoever.
Admits banning them would keep those without weapons/mags from having easy access by drawing on the analogy that people outside a wall have no access.
Calls me stupid.

You are being stupid.

You're equating building a wall and that wall's effectiveness of keeping people out who are already inside (the object you are building a wall around) to the banning of something already in circulation everywhere. I never admitting banning them would keep those without weapons/mags from having easy access because they're already in circulation. You're having problems with reading comprehension (again).

 

[Tsing Tao]

Tsing Tao isn't an intelligent man he's just some moron who fears the world and likes hanging around shooting ranges for a hobby. There is a better then average chance that either he or a close family member gets shot at some point which is kind of sad but just a good example why the US needs to reverse course on gun policy soon. A civilized nation can't let the more uneducated or misguided elements of their society to dictate these kind of policies.

You can't make an argument that holds any water in this thread, but I'm the one who isn't intelligent.

My favorite all time "intelligent" post by Nine Ender:

To the administrators :

Recent activity on your site has included significant slanderous activity involving my posts. For example, quoting out of context,
and embelleshing what has been said to distort my message. As of today, several posters have attacked me personally including death threats and overall libelous content.

This will be stopping today. What I am requesting immediately is the deletion of every single post in my history, and the removal of my account from this site. If you do not do this, I will be consulting a lawyer with respect to sueing your site for character defamation.

Removal of my posting history is necessary to prevent the ongoing slander approach being used by several posters on this site.

Please take this request seriously, recent legislation in our country has shown that this kind of online character assassination is illegal and actionable by law.

I have no need to be here anymore.
​

Of course, this was back in Sept 2011.

 

[Cuddles]

Regulation of the emissions of cars is done through the manufacture of these cars. Cars built prior to these emission standards are not held to the same standards. I have not seen one argument against regulating the function of new guns manufactured. The argument I am countering is about banning firearms, and how that will not work. If you wish to change the manufacture of future firearms with some quality to make them safer, I am all for it. But you'd have to accept that guns made prior wouldn't be subject to the same restrictions in order for your ridiculous car analogy to hold up.


Ah, the ol' "if we had done this, it would have worked". Reminds me of the whole "shovel ready" argument on the jobless rate. "Had we not spent the money, it would have looked like this."

You have no idea what impact "strict firearm regulation" would have had on the above chart (which was primarily driven by the belief that Obama was going to try to regulate guns). Any laws put in place would simply have spiked the line earlier on the time scale as people bought guns in a frenzy to get ahead of the ban. Just like every other time such a law was feared.

Really, you have seen no argument against regulating function of new guns? No lower capacity magazines, no semi-auto features, no gun grip on semi auto rifles, bump stocks, etc...? And yes, the whole point is that it's for new sales, no one is stupid enough to think emission regulation should be applied to old cars.

The point I'm making on the Columbine reference is that "it would take a long time so let's not do it" argument is stupid. You're right, I have no idea what strict gun control would have done to that chart. But one can surmise making things harder to obtain would dampen ownership. Something that's been true of pretty much every other good for sale in the history of mankind.

You are being stupid.

You're equating building a wall and that wall's effectiveness of keeping people out who are already inside (the object you are building a wall around) to the banning of something already in circulation everywhere. I never admitting banning them would keep those without weapons/mags from having easy access because they're already in circulation. You're having problems with reading comprehension (again).

No, you're being stupid, I never said anything about people inside the wall or guns in circulation, you did. Tell me something, if I want a gun, am I a gun owner? The point I'm making is exactly on new gun sales. That has been obvious from the very first post on my wall comment. You can either agree a wall is effective for newcomers and as such stricter gun legislation is effective on new gun owners, OR you can admit a wall is stupid because people will bypass it, as someone who really wants a gun will bypass gun regulation. You can't have it both ways.