What is Gun Control Really About?

Sheep = Slaughter wrote:

1) Not surprisingly, you didn’t answer the question. Nobody has. Also not surprisingly, you chose to spout and accuse about unrelated things as an angry, emotion laden distraction. Typical.

2). It’s not a fantasy perpetuated by the NRA. It’s our history and the reason the founding fathers created the second amendment. Please don’t try to distract with lies and or false statements.

3) You are a bigot, by the definition of the word. Or I should say, your post is bigoted, so you have responded in a bigoted way. You may or may not actually be a bigot. That would depend on if what you said in your response is how you actually think. You have no clue as to who I am, what color my skin is, what my socio-economic status is, what my life history and experience looks like or anything else about me, but you have no problem deciding what all those are for me based on a religious level belief and prejudice of apparent hate and labeling. Bigotry is hate. It’s an intense emotion that is not based on facts, nor is it’s goal to work together, find common ground, and make the world better. It’s a simplistic and emotional response that justifies feelings of hatred and instills a false feeling of righteousness. It’s sad and destructive and if at all possible I would encourage you to look in a mirror and consider this, for your own benefit most of all.

4). Humans do bad things. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes unintentionally. Bad things have been done in the past. Slavery and the treatment of Native Americans are two examples of horrific acts and policies that were and are evil. So how do we go forward? By spitting out hate and anger like you appear to be doing? Can we change the past? Can we learn from the past? What is the goal going forward? Vengeance? A better life for everyone? Something else?

5). Guns have nothing to do with voting rights. I have no idea why you are bringing up things that a) have nothing to do with the topic, rather are just emotional dogma talking points. And b) that you obviously don’t really know anything about, other than what you are picking up from sensationalized media and like minded’s.

6). “Guns are for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems” is as useful and accurate a statement as “Ice cream is for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems” or “bigotry is for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems.” It is an insult, which is basically the liberal, identity politics, divide and conquer playbook. If you can’t answer the question, distract with fear or anger. Dehumanize your opposition. It’s easier to hate isn’t it?

7). Finally, the topper on the cake was your Nazi statement. First, how could the Nazi’s loosen gun restrictions before they came to power??? They weren’t IN power BEFORE they came to power, so they had no POWER to do anything. Second, there is nothing about your statement that is true. It is a lie that you either believe or are intentionally stating to confuse and deceive.

Anyone want to intelligently (and preferably unemotionally) answer the original question(s)?

Had Enough wrote:

Sheep = Slaughter wrote:

1) Not surprisingly, you didn’t answer the question. Nobody has. Also not surprisingly, you chose to spout and accuse about unrelated things as an angry, emotion laden distraction. Typical.

2). It’s not a fantasy perpetuated by the NRA. It’s our history and the reason the founding fathers created the second amendment. Please don’t try to distract with lies and or false statements.

3) You are a bigot, by the definition of the word. Or I should say, your post is bigoted, so you have responded in a bigoted way. You may or may not actually be a bigot. That would depend on if what you said in your response is how you actually think. You have no clue as to who I am, what color my skin is, what my socio-economic status is, what my life history and experience looks like or anything else about me, but you have no problem deciding what all those are for me based on a religious level belief and prejudice of apparent hate and labeling. Bigotry is hate. It’s an intense emotion that is not based on facts, nor is it’s goal to work together, find common ground, and make the world better. It’s a simplistic and emotional response that justifies feelings of hatred and instills a false feeling of righteousness. It’s sad and destructive and if at all possible I would encourage you to look in a mirror and consider this, for your own benefit most of all.

4). Humans do bad things. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes unintentionally. Bad things have been done in the past. Slavery and the treatment of Native Americans are two examples of horrific acts and policies that were and are evil. So how do we go forward? By spitting out hate and anger like you appear to be doing? Can we change the past? Can we learn from the past? What is the goal going forward? Vengeance? A better life for everyone? Something else?

5). Guns have nothing to do with voting rights. I have no idea why you are bringing up things that a) have nothing to do with the topic, rather are just emotional dogma talking points. And b) that you obviously don’t really know anything about, other than what you are picking up from sensationalized media and like minded’s.

6). “Guns are for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems” is as useful and accurate a statement as “Ice cream is for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems” or “bigotry is for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems.” It is an insult, which is basically the liberal, identity politics, divide and conquer playbook. If you can’t answer the question, distract with fear or anger. Dehumanize your opposition. It’s easier to hate isn’t it?

7). Finally, the topper on the cake was your Nazi statement. First, how could the Nazi’s loosen gun restrictions before they came to power??? They weren’t IN power BEFORE they came to power, so they had no POWER to do anything. Second, there is nothing about your statement that is true. It is a lie that you either believe or are intentionally stating to confuse and deceive.

Anyone want to intelligently (and preferably unemotionally) answer the original question(s)?

TRIGGER WARNING!!!! Somethings wrote may hurt your feelings, big boy.

1.) I am sorry you lack reading skills. Voting is check as I mentioned. The people are the check. Guns are not.

2.) The NRA makes $$ off of the idea that the gummit is coming for your guns. That is a fact. The fact that you have been brainwashed by this is unfortunate but clearly evident. Nothing in the second amendment mentions the government coming after the people. The "Free state" could defending against anyone.

3.) Not sure why you started name calling.. Actually I am. What you are isn't important. The fact that you ignore rights being trampled everyday by the gov't is what is importing. Gun toters haven

t stopped that. You whine about emotion and respond with more emotion then a 12 yr old Cure fan. I don't play that game. I measure your words. The whole "you don't know me" is pretty rich considering you've freely judged multiple people in this thread with zero problem. Self-awareness is a good thing.

4.) The Right uses idea that "Humans do bad things" to explain systematic measures to harm oppressed people is disgusting. Redlining isn't "humans do bad things", Cops denying rights to POCs isn't "humans doing bad things", the state putting innocent people do death isn't "humans doing bad things", corporations and the state allowing mass pollution near poor people isn't "humans doing bad things". I hate people making excuses for a bad system.

5.) I'm sorry it's too complex for you. It's the answer to your question you keep whining about.

6.) Incorrect. There has been research that shows guns cause more violence because they are impersonal. They cause escalation. Instead of a situation where two people might be fighting where you have to be up close (which is a disincentive), a gun introduced. It's an "easy out". I've seen people involved in minor traffic accidents immediately reach for their gun. In my mind, that's the sign of a weak mind.

7.) History lesson. The Nazis existed in the 1920s before they came to national power. The German government loosened gun laws in 1928 after banning all ownership in 1919. In 1938, The Nazis further loosened gun laws. (the 1928 allowed all firearms if licensed), the Nazi dropped this requirement to make it for only handguns and lowered the age of gun ownership. They did ban Jewish people from owning guns and other weapons. The point is gun laws neither hindered nor helped the Nazi rise to power. But the idea that only certain people are should have guns is a hallmark of the American right. Say what you want gun grabbers, at least they are consistent.

There are many reasons dictators come to power. But it's a stretch to say that guns would've prevent any of them. In fact, they all came to power stating how corrupt and bad the current government is...sounds like someone in this thread.

Sheep = Slaughter wrote:

Had Enough wrote:

TRIGGER WARNING!!!! Somethings wrote may hurt your feelings, big boy.

1.) I am sorry you lack reading skills. Voting is check as I mentioned. The people are the check. Guns are not.

2.) The NRA makes $$ off of the idea that the gummit is coming for your guns. That is a fact. The fact that you have been brainwashed by this is unfortunate but clearly evident. Nothing in the second amendment mentions the government coming after the people. The "Free state" could defending against anyone.

3.) Not sure why you started name calling.. Actually I am. What you are isn't important. The fact that you ignore rights being trampled everyday by the gov't is what is importing. Gun toters haven

t stopped that. You whine about emotion and respond with more emotion then a 12 yr old Cure fan. I don't play that game. I measure your words. The whole "you don't know me" is pretty rich considering you've freely judged multiple people in this thread with zero problem. Self-awareness is a good thing.

4.) The Right uses idea that "Humans do bad things" to explain systematic measures to harm oppressed people is disgusting. Redlining isn't "humans do bad things", Cops denying rights to POCs isn't "humans doing bad things", the state putting innocent people do death isn't "humans doing bad things", corporations and the state allowing mass pollution near poor people isn't "humans doing bad things". I hate people making excuses for a bad system.

5.) I'm sorry it's too complex for you. It's the answer to your question you keep whining about.

6.) Incorrect. There has been research that shows guns cause more violence because they are impersonal. They cause escalation. Instead of a situation where two people might be fighting where you have to be up close (which is a disincentive), a gun introduced. It's an "easy out". I've seen people involved in minor traffic accidents immediately reach for their gun. In my mind, that's the sign of a weak mind.

7.) History lesson. The Nazis existed in the 1920s before they came to national power. The German government loosened gun laws in 1928 after banning all ownership in 1919. In 1938, The Nazis further loosened gun laws. (the 1928 allowed all firearms if licensed), the Nazi dropped this requirement to make it for only handguns and lowered the age of gun ownership. They did ban Jewish people from owning guns and other weapons. The point is gun laws neither hindered nor helped the Nazi rise to power. But the idea that only certain people are should have guns is a hallmark of the American right. Say what you want gun grabbers, at least they are consistent.

There are many reasons dictators come to power. But it's a stretch to say that guns would've prevent any of them. In fact, they all came to power stating how corrupt and bad the current government is...sounds like someone in this thread.

I appreciate your effort.

CrispyChicken wrote:

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

No. Only purchases from licensed gun dealers require background checks.

You can either find a friend to purchase a gun for you, or hire someone to purchase a gun and then sell it to you without background checks. You can also assemble a gun from purchased kit, which does not require background checks.

You cannot do this with automobiles. If you buy a car from your friend, you still have to go to DMV and transfer your registration.

No U.S. and several state constitutional rights to own an automobile (general private property rights aside). No U.S. and several state constitutional rights to operate an automobile on public roads (zoning regulations aside, you may keep an unregistered vehicle in your garage or yard). Express U.S. and several state constitutional rights to keep and bear a firearm. If you don't like those constitutional rights to keep and bear a firearm, take action to have those constitutions amended to deny the right.

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

CrispyChicken wrote:

No U.S. and several state constitutional rights to own an automobile (general private property rights aside). No U.S. and several state constitutional rights to operate an automobile on public roads (zoning regulations aside, you may keep an unregistered vehicle in your garage or yard). Express U.S. and several state constitutional rights to keep and bear a firearm. If you don't like those constitutional rights to keep and bear a firearm, take action to have those constitutions amended to deny the right.

I was replying to a poster who claimed there was already universal background checks.

So do you think universal background checks violate your second amendment rights? YES or NO.

Do you think convicted felons have the constitutional rights to own firearms. YES or NO.

Do you think people with mental illness have the constitutional rights to own firearms. YES or NO.

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

CrispyChicken wrote:

No U.S. and several state constitutional rights to own an automobile (general private property rights aside). No U.S. and several state constitutional rights to operate an automobile on public roads (zoning regulations aside, you may keep an unregistered vehicle in your garage or yard). Express U.S. and several state constitutional rights to keep and bear a firearm. If you don't like those constitutional rights to keep and bear a firearm, take action to have those constitutions amended to deny the right.

I was replying to a poster who claimed there was already universal background checks.

So do you think universal background checks violate your second amendment rights? YES or NO.

Do you think convicted felons have the constitutional rights to own firearms. YES or NO.

Do you think people with mental illness have the constitutional rights to own firearms. YES or NO.

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

CrispyChicken wrote:

Despite Biden's recent lie that "You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual", private ownership of artillery was not unusual through at least the Civil War. Definitely owners of private merchant ships during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 owned naval cannon and outfitted their ships with such artillery to protect them and to earn money through the use of their ships as legal privateers (not pirates). A large portion of the U.S. Naval strength during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 was made up of private ships using privately owned artillery against the British. Many of these ships operated along the coast of Delaware and New Jersey and not too far from the present Biden Beach Compound. Too bad Biden is not too bright.

So do you support the private possession of artilleries? How about tanks or fighter planes? Would it be a good idea if Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates is allowed to possess nuclear missiles?

CaptainObviously wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

Why does everyone against guns ask this?

How is it not obvious? They ask this because at a certain point you go from a gun owner to a terrorist threat living in your own country. Many of us would argue that the line should be drawn when you go from owning a rifle for hunting or a handgun for self defense to owning an automatic rifle that could kill 20 people in 30 seconds.

The US has by far the least restrictive gun laws and highest gun ownership of any country and incidentally the most gun deaths by an insanely high margin. How is this not the simplest math ever? In the 90’s the US passed stricter gun laws and saw a huge improvement but since then we’ve taken multiple steps backward thanks to the NRA and brainwashed yokels thinking the government could give a crap about their old hunting rifle.

Uncle Samson wrote:

CaptainObviously wrote:

How is it not obvious? They ask this because at a certain point you go from a gun owner to a terrorist threat living in your own country. Many of us would argue that the line should be drawn when you go from owning a rifle for hunting or a handgun for self defense to owning an automatic rifle that could kill 20 people in 30 seconds.

The US has by far the least restrictive gun laws and highest gun ownership of any country and incidentally the most gun deaths by an insanely high margin. How is this not the simplest math ever? In the 90’s the US passed stricter gun laws and saw a huge improvement but since then we’ve taken multiple steps backward thanks to the NRA and brainwashed yokels thinking the government could give a crap about their old hunting rifle.

"at a certain point you go from a gun owner to a terrorist threat living in your own country."

Holy Crap! You guys really are crazies aren't you!!!

If you honestly think that is a logical conclusion, then nothing I or anyone else says here is going to help you.

I have to say something though, if for no other reason than to hopefully stop someone from even remotely considering what you said as plausible.

So I will say that for 233 years since the ratification of the US Constitution Americans have owned guns. Massive numbers of Americans have owned guns from the creation of the nation.

Currently (meaning today...right now!) over 100 million Americans own at least one gun. (There are very few "mass shootings", especially in comparison to the number of people that own guns, as was noted in the original post.)

If your statement is true, then you have 233 years in which many hundreds of millions of Americans have owned guns and should have gone from gun owner to terrorist. We should have seen this as a widespread issue, throughout 233 years. We are talking a minimum of 30% of the entire history of population in the United States, and probably more like more than 50%.

History would indicate that never happened and thus your statement is immediately rendered completely false. If your premise has even a fraction of logic and truth to it, we wouldn't be sitting here in the United States right now. The country would be gone, having been taken over or completely destroyed by the 100's of millions of gun owners that had transformed into the largest terrorist organization in the history of humanity.

Also, by your statement, right now almost a full third of the population of the United States are or soon will be terrorists...it's a logical conclusion, right? Actually it's about as illogical as you could possibly come up with, which is down right scary. You have nothing to support this statement on even a small scale, much less on the scale of firearms ownerships in the United States right now. I mean, as I write this out I am having trouble even coming to terms with just how stupid it is that I would have to explain this to you. I can only hope and pray that you weren't serious, you were just doing that Liberal thing where you don't conduct a logical debate, but rather say something short and crazy to whip people up and try to distract. Please tell me you weren't serious and you just tricked me into thinking you actually believed that so you could be entertained by watching me try to come to terms with such a blatantly stupid statement! Please tell me you don't really believe what you wrote (or verify you do so we can discount absolutely everything you say).

Uncle Samson wrote:

CaptainObviously wrote:

How is it not obvious? They ask this because at a certain point you go from a gun owner to a terrorist threat living in your own country. Many of us would argue that the line should be drawn when you go from owning a rifle for hunting or a handgun for self defense to owning an automatic rifle that could kill 20 people in 30 seconds.

The US has by far the least restrictive gun laws and highest gun ownership of any country and incidentally the most gun deaths by an insanely high margin. How is this not the simplest math ever? In the 90’s the US passed stricter gun laws and saw a huge improvement but since then we’ve taken multiple steps backward thanks to the NRA and brainwashed yokels thinking the government could give a crap about their old hunting rifle.

"at a certain point you go from a gun owner to a terrorist threat living in your own country."

Holy Crap! You guys really are crazies aren't you!!!

If you honestly think that is a logical conclusion, then nothing I or anyone else says here is going to help you.

I have to say something though, if for no other reason than to hopefully stop someone from even remotely considering what you said as plausible.

So I will say that for 233 years since the ratification of the US Constitution Americans have owned guns. Massive numbers of Americans have owned guns from the creation of the nation.

Currently (meaning today...right now!) over 100 million Americans own at least one gun. (There are very few "mass shootings", especially in comparison to the number of people that own guns, as was noted in the original post.)

If your statement is true, then you have 233 years in which many hundreds of millions of Americans have owned guns and should have gone from gun owner to terrorist. We should have seen this as a widespread issue, throughout 233 years. We are talking a minimum of 30% of the entire history of population in the United States, and probably more like more than 50%.

History would indicate that never happened and thus your statement is immediately rendered completely false. If your premise has even a fraction of logic and truth to it, we wouldn't be sitting here in the United States right now. The country would be gone, having been taken over or completely destroyed by the 100's of millions of gun owners that had transformed into the largest terrorist organization in the history of humanity.

Also, by your statement, right now almost a full third of the population of the United States are or soon will be terrorists...it's a logical conclusion, right? Actually it's about as illogical as you could possibly come up with, which is down right scary. You have nothing to support this statement on even a small scale, much less on the scale of firearms ownerships in the United States right now. I mean, as I write this out I am having trouble even coming to terms with just how stupid it is that I would have to explain this to you. I can only hope and pray that you weren't serious, you were just doing that Liberal thing where you don't conduct a logical debate, but rather say something short and crazy to whip people up and try to distract. Please tell me you weren't serious and you just tricked me into thinking you actually believed that so you could be entertained by watching me try to come to terms with such a blatantly stupid statement! Please tell me you don't really believe what you wrote (or verify you do so we can discount absolutely everything you say).