Gun Confiscation

[scrogdog]

I am guessing any intelligent monkey is smart enough to use a rock to kill. We need better weapons. And we are not killing each other with them in general. We are PROTECTING EACH OTHER.

Jesus.

Ah, I think I see the problem here.

You obviously have copious data showing that average handgun owners are being repeatedly overwhelmed by thugs simply because they are armed with assault rifles and the poor homeowner is not.

I await your data on this national tragedy of which I was truly unaware.

[Tool-Slinger]

You should have them because you want them.

Well, I give you credit for one thing... at least someone answered my question at last.

Night folks, I'll have to ponder how to answer that one!

You ignored the entire point. But I require your assistance and approval in my gun ownership as much as I require your assistance and approval in my free speech. I say what I want to say, I own what I want to own. Because I want to say it, or own it. Constitution 1 and 2. If you do not like those, maybe you should have them amended out of the Constitution.

[scrogdog]

You ignored the entire point. But I require your assistance and approval in my gun ownership as much as I require your assistance and approval in my free speech. I say what I want to say, I own what I want to own. Because I want to say it, or own it. Constitution 1 and 2. If you do not like those, maybe you should have them amended out of the Constitution.

No amendment needed, I should think. Only popular support and the interpretation of the Supreme Court really matters at this point.

I think we know how each other will vote.

There is a sense of opportunity in the air amongst the American people in my view. Maybe I'm a weirdo but I am a conservative voter who supports this in absence of any logical reason not to.

If the constitution needs further modification, ok. That's why we have amendments.

[Tool-Slinger]

Ah, I think I see the problem here.

You obviously have copious data showing that average handgun owners are being repeatedly overwhelmed by thugs simply because they are armed with assault rifles and the poor homeowner is not.

I await your data on this national tragedy of which I was truly unaware.

No, you are spouting off goofy hypothetical references to using rocks as weapons then turn around and ask in my reply how I can come up with rational statistical data.

I tried to reply to your hypothetical nuttiness in an honest fashion, then you go all science on me in reply.

Does that tail chaff your legs?

[scrogdog]

No, you are spouting off goofy hypothetical references to using rocks as weapons then turn around and ask in my reply how I can come up with rational statistical data.

I tried to reply to your hypothetical nuttiness in an honest fashion, then you go all science on me in reply.

Does that tail chaff your legs?

Actually no. I am still struggling, after many pages now, to understand how an assault rifle makes your average joe American safer in his home.

All I get are tap dances and NRA rhetoric.

Perhaps someday someone will actually explain it.

[Tool-Slinger]

No amendment needed, I should think. Only popular support and the interpretation of the Supreme Court really matters at this point.

I think we know how each other will vote.

There is a sense of opportunity in the air amongst the American people in my view. Maybe I'm a weirdo but I am a conservative voter who supports this in absence of any logical reason not to.

If the constitution needs further modification, ok. That's why we have amendments.

Weill there is a sense of opportunity in the air among Americans to reduce freedom and grant more power to the federal government. You agree with some strange bedfellows. China does not want us having our guns. You are siding with communist dictators. That could be construed as traitorous. Seriously, our enemies want us disarmed.

The state news agency in China, the official voice of the government, has called for the United States to quickly adopt stricter gun controls

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/...ntrols-in-u-s/

Do you not realize our global potential rivals do not want us to have weapons? You are smarter than that.

Sense of opportunity? Go to Venezuela or Cuba and don't come back.

[jpsmith1cm]

Because, I came here to get points of view. Discourse. Debate.

Again I state, I'm moderate on this issue because I believe that one side has a point that the other side chokes on and can only respond by parroting NRA talking points and rheteric instead of giving a meaningful and thoughtful answer.

Pages ago, I asked a simple question. In my view, it remains unanswered. The inability to address that simple question meaningfully without rhetoric is apparently non-existant in my humble opinion.

I've given you several answers.

They're just not the answer that you want to hear.

Banning the instruments of crime is, at best, a half-hearted and lazy attempt to fix a much larger problem.

It does not address the REAL issues in my opinion and is extremely short-sighted.

[jpsmith1cm]

We need all of those things. If you agree and are not just spouting rhetoric, what is wrong with guns first? How is that bad even if nothing else gets done?

If each thing is bad, then eliminating only one of them is good.

You still have not answered a single question I've posed, of course, but can we agree on that at least?

Let's try everything ELSE first.

We've been down the assault weapons ban road before and it didn't work because it was the ONLY step that was tried.

Given the laziness of the politicians in DC, IF it were to pass, it would be the ONLY step tried.

[jmac00]

The problem with the rhetoric is it ignores the essential question. I can harm you with a rock.

You have still yet to explain why you are safer with the proposed banned weapons than without. I can't even believe I have to mention this again. What is it... 6 or 7 pages now?

Common sense dictates that one should have a tool in case it's needed, rather than wait til it's needed and then try go purchase the tool.

I don't NEED a hammer, I HAVE four of them. I don't use them everyday, but they are there in case I need one.

I don't NEED a chain saw, I rarely ever use it. But when I do NEED it, I can get it and put it to use in a moments notice.

I don't NEED a fire extinguisher, but I have one just in case.

I am safer WITH these weapons ( AR-15, 44mag, 380, 12ga) because if I need them, I have them. If I don't have them and I need them, Im screwed and so is my family.

asked and answered

Hammers, chain saws and fire extinguishers are rarely if ever the weapon choice of mass-shooting perpetrators; AR-15s and like weapons are.

same with the modern sporting rifle, it has been used exactly four (5 if you include that nut job in Webster) times in the last 7 years at mass shootings. of the ESTIMATED 3.5 million modern sporting rifles sold since 2004 thats a percentage of .000001142.
so it would seem the modern sporting rifle isn't the biggest problem. You are FAR more likely to be killed by your doctor or a drunk driver or even second hand smoke rather than a modern sporting rifle

The problem is liberal control freaks think a tool is the problem. Instead of trying fix mental health issues (the primary problem) you would rather remove the tool of law abiding citizens and leave the problem out there, unresolved.

Your blatant banter about "it's the guns fault" is a glaring false flag. But when you USE children as your banner, you give false promise of a brighter day a head. When it's been proven time and time again that banning any weapons DOES NOT WORK. As evidenced by the Columbine shooting 1999, in the middle of the assault weapons ban. As evidenced in the U.K. and Australia where crime is up 30%, violent crime is up 40%

Oddly, the last 10 mass shooting have happened since Mr Anti-Gun NObama has been in office. And the worse place in the country is Chicago, NObama's home town. Every single day Chicago's has gun crime, in GUN FREE ZONE. Hows that working out for you.

[Jax]

I have never held a loaded gun in my hand. None of my family or friends have ever owned guns.

We aren't we dead?

This may be your problem understanding the problem with gun ban.
If you look at the assault weapons definition on the original law, it was all but laughable, especially considering the fully auto has been ban since 1934. We are only talking about semi automatic guns.
A few cosmetic features made the difference between legal and illegal. The law was obviously written by people who knew nothing about guns. And as is always the case, additional guns were added to the list. When you start to ban, the line will grow to include more and more.

[jpsmith1cm]

The problem with the rhetoric is it ignores the essential question. I can harm you with a rock.

You have still yet to explain why you are safer with the proposed banned weapons than without. I can't even believe I have to mention this again. What is it... 6 or 7 pages now?

Exactly,

Now, explain how banning one classification of firearm will make YOU safer.

Given that any tool can be used to harm another person and none of the proposals put forth to date do ANYTHING AT ALL to address the people that wish to do harm to others, we're still left with a class of people who wish to do harm to others and are now less able to defend ourselves against them as we've surrendered our freedom to own those very arms best suited to use for that purpose.

[Jax]

Actually no. I am still struggling, after many pages now, to understand how an assault rifle makes your average joe American safer in his home.

All I get are tap dances and NRA rhetoric.

Perhaps someday someone will actually explain it.

The answer to your question is simple. I should be able to own and have in my home, guns that offer the best protection. Why is a military style weapon not the best choice for that?
My neighbor should have the same choice. Now this in no way should force you to do the same, if you feel safe in a home without guns. But whether you believe it or not, the fact that a burglar does not know if you do or don't have an effective gun for protection will certainly make him think twice before breaking in on you. And if he/she considers that the gun they may face could be a very effective "assault weapon", well certainly a deterrent I would say. So Yes, law-abiding gun owners are making it safer for you.

[RoBoTeq]

That Americans are allowed to be treated as criminals for owning guns is enough reason for Americans to start using lethal force rather than rational conversation with any and all who promote the things that occurred in the OP's video.

Since rational argument is no longer accepted by leftist fascists such as Obama and fascist wannabe's such as geer, the only alternative is force. I for one and through trying to have rational conversations with such fascist persons. If it comes down to my being treated like those in that video have been treated, the end of my life will be marked by my at least taking down some of those who choose to follow orders to treat other Americans like those police and military personnel in that video have done.

There is NO EXCUSE for those police or military persons to follow orders to harass and criminalize American citizens like that. "I was just following orders..." is not a good enough excuse for Nazi's who commited crimes against humanity and "I was just following orders...." is not good enough for me to excuse any of those police or military persons in that video to be doing what they were doing. I have no problem ending the life of someone due to their not having enough integrity or ethics to not treat me that way just because "government" told them to do so.