By What Right Do You Threaten Our Gun Rights?

It baffles me when people try to blame the attacks on western countries because of foreign policies of America.
For petes sake, they killed people in France at Charlie Hebdo over a cartoon!

 

Exactly !!!

The same folks that hate and want to exterminate Israel, our only true friend in the Middle East.

 

Your evaluation is incorrect.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

So according to the police, any product or item becomes an offensive weapon if it is used in any manner that could cause harm.

 

We ABSOLUTELY can take away someone's rights because they might be dangerous. We do it every day in this country. In my state its called a legal 2000

- - - Updated - - -

You are aware that the bible calls for killing people for all kinds of ridiculous sins?

 

A great many coworkers of Omar Mateen reported that he was dangerously violent, but no one ever spoke up about such, not even to the police. His wife never made a police report alleging domestic violence, not sought a restraining order, which would have prevented him from being able to legally acquire any firearms.

The so-called "loophole" that you refer to, is known better as the system in place not being used as it is supposed to be used. All the checks and balances in place failed.

 

No we're fighting for empire. You look at who they attack & ignore who they don't attack. There are reasons they don't attack Brazil, for example, because it doesn't attack them. Freedom has nothing to do with it. Stop drinking neocon Kool Aid. I could go down a long list of countries Muslims don't attack. We can live in peace with them if we choose to.

BTW, are they Jihadists or Mujahadeen? When they were our allies fighting communism they didn't attack us. I wonder why.

 

It doesn't have to be aggressive.
- voluntary buy backs - non aggressive
- licensing your weapons - non aggressive
- criminal background checks - non aggressive.

Is it aggression for the police to impound a car that it is unregistered driven by an unlicensed driver. No, force would only have to be used if the driver was borderline insane on a property rights rant, high on meth having a crack at the police offers, same could be said for weapons.

 

Yeah the Government just tried to make gun owners register their guns in CT., did you hear how that went?

 

Well and good enough for you in your Country, but not here in the U.S., and for the record, I have credentials enough for ten people, as far as firearms go.

And FYI, Here in the U.S., gun buy backs are so petty criminals and not so petty criminals can get rid of murder weapons, no questions asked, this was verified by NYPD Detectives running Finest ballistic tests, prior to melting down buy back guns.

NYC has a handgun registration on concealed carry approved guns, as well as all rifles & shotguns, although it proves nothing.

Concealed carry is a license in most of the U.S., It is assumed that you probably have a handgun, if you have a CCW.

Here in the U.S. in every State, you must first pass the Federal Instant background check, a criminal background check in case you did not know. .....

You also need to pass a criminal background check in order get a concealed carry handgun license.

So ends the myth that folks are buying and carrying all guns with no background checks.

 

Ohay - nice claim - now prove that please

I have enough research that actually states the opposite (and PLEASE. please please quote that idtiot Kleck)

 

Let's face it mate though, the gun buy back here only happened because under OUR constitution the government cannot seize property without fair recompense. Most of those who handed in weapons figured they would be making a profit and could not be bothered with the expensive safes and locks required under law

Of all of those interventions it appears the most successful was not the buy back but the mandating of firearm security and tracking of guns.

 

I do not have to quote anyone Deary, I know what I observed first hand in NYC, in EMS and as a member of the Official Police.
I can supply actual statistics.

 

Nope they are not.

 

I gave you the link to the Crime Prosecution Service's own legal guide to self-defence, they outrank the police as they are the ones who decide whether a case will be tried in court or not .. the police don't, so while someone may be arrested for using self-defence (as I believe they are in the US) they will not be convicted of a crime if the CPS or a court finds it was self-defence .. I believe the US system works in roughly the same way.

 

Trying to implement a firearms buyback program in the united states would be cost prohibitive, if the same fair market value approach is tried. AR-15s are not cheap, with prices varying anywhere between seven hundred and three thousand dollars, with an estimated minimum of ten million in current circulation. Assuming the average market price for an AR-15 is one thousand dollars, that would require ten billion dollars of funding just for that one series of rifle.

This does not even begin to take into consideration the countless similar models of rifles that are owned. Additionally factoring in handguns and shotguns, and the amount of money needed for any attempted buyback could approach the range of one trillion dollars or more. That is more than one fourth of the federal budget for the united states during last fiscal year.

 

Perhaps it is cost prohibitive now.

But if you stop the selling / producing of them now, with population growth / inflation etc, who knows it might be doable and more palatable in 100 years. Never to late to start doing the right thing.

 

I would have no issue with gun nuts if when their guns were used to kill others..it was other gun nuts or members of their own family.

I have an issue with gun nuts taking away the rights of law abiding non gun owners.

When gun nuts kill themselves or their families, like the woman who's baby shot her from the back seat...I think that's fine. Its not a tragedy, its just Darwinism.

 

That is a lie.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." -- Dianne Feinstein

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
"We must get rid of all the guns." -- Sarah Brady

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell (while employing an armed bodyguard, (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hypocrite)

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama

Stop trying to gaslight gun owners. We see right through your bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Rosie O'Donnell isn't exactly a spokes person for liberals. Obama just did a town hall meeting on PBS Newshour and told a guy who asked a direct question he wasn't in favor of banning all guns. Just putting some restrictions on some guns and high capacity magazines. And "restrictions" doesn't even mean none. It means more questions, qualifiers and follow up. Where has he ever said no one can have a gun? That's ridiculous... He's guarded by people with guns at every waking moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He said noone can have handguns, at least, when he said we should model our gun control on Australia's.

And gun grabbers never advocate that they or their security teams be disarmed. It's only the plebs that don't have the right to armed defense.

 

Can I get a link please? Show me where he has said people cannot have any guns. People do not need guns that can mow down 100+ people in a matter of minutes. Unless you're preparing to defend yourself from a zombie hoard that is unnecessary. That does not mean no access to hand guns or even rifles. Handguns can still carry plenty of ammo to truly defend yourself and family. Australia requires registration, a probationary period after applying for permit, a maximum clip size. Where does it say no guns? I don't think the majority of liberals are asking to get rid of conceal carries either, in fact many liberals have their conceal carry. But does someone need to conceal an AR-15 with high capacity magazines? I'm not even saying no AR-15s... Just cap the number of bullets it can fire off in a minute. If the guy had walked in to Pulse with a 9mm clip of 15 rounds, maybe 15 people get shot... Not 100. Gun control will not stop gun violence, I'm not naive about that. However some controls would reduce the frequency and ease of 100 people getting shot at one time. I think there are expert shooters, competitive shooters etc. that could qualify for higher capacity magazines so they didn't have to refill at the range all day long. Or maybe you check a large magazine out at the range and check it back in when you're done. These are the kinds of things we could investigate if the NRA would even allow for research.

The argument is always to just have more people conceal carry, but when you're so severely outgunned what does someone really expect to do? If massive magazines weren't available to citizens the guy would have had to stop and reload, maybe giving the security guy or a conceal carrier the time to put him down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

He didn't say that people couldn't have guns. He just held up two countries with some of the strictest gun control on Europe as models of what he wants to achieve. He is looking up to countries that do not recognize the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms, and holding them up as models of what American gun control should be. He wants to force us to turn in our weapons so that agents of the state have a monopoly on armed force.

What practical purpose does banning standard capacity magazines serve? What does it help? How is it justified?

Gun control advocates always talk about "common sense" gun control, but all they offer is arbitrary, ignorant nonsense laws like "assault weapon" bans.

 

Well in that case you have no worries because the 1996 firearm reforms have not exactly hurt us

 

How many dead or injured? How many would you accept as the price for your "freedom" to do what you like with firearms?

 

How can you be so obtuse, is it deliberate ???

It is well established here in America, that concealed Carry Permit holders are mostly law abiding citizens, and NOT the ones involved in MASS shootings or Criminal activity.

Yet, any restrictions you might think are good and proper will only affect those people not so inclined to defy or break the law...... Once you get through with your restrictions, there will be no concealed carry or AR's or any other firearm you may not like so much or deem not needed for some odd reason,