Americans Must Resign Themselves to Crazy Gunster Massacres

Undoubtedly, so?

 

If you ever have to defend yourself or your family you will know why

 

A psychopath is someone without a conscience, when they were first noticed psychologists called them "moral imbeciles"

If they've never been certified as violently insane and a danger to people, no , they cannot

The problem I have is that many gun advocates want people to be allowed guns even if they HAVE been certified as violently insane and a danger to others.

My feelings on this matter is that guns have become so dangerous their use should be stringently licensed. That doesn't mean that gun ownership is not a right, rights are regulated all the time, indeed, it might be argued that is government's major purpose, to regulate the exercise of our rights so that we can all safely have them

 

The problem I have is that I don't trust governemt to be the gate keeper for gun ownership

There is a lot of room for abuse if we start prohibiting gun ownership based on liberal fears of some people

 

Then who do you trust?

 

Myself and the 2nd Amendment

 

The mindless, knee-jerk frenzy evoked by Americans wanting to take sensible, modest measures to protect themselves from the consequences of firearm permissiveness was not always the automatic response. The NRA was once receptive to public safety concerns and cooperative in safeguarding Americans from the consequences of enabling killers:

The NRA Wasn't Always Against Gun Restrictions
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/10/55657...restrictions?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news​

 

Really? This is what you believe? This is nothing more than a rationalization you have made up to support your hate.

Do you have to be licensed in order to exercise free speech? Do you have to be licensed to exercise your right to an attorney? Do you have to be licensed in order to not incriminate yourself?

The purpose of government is stated in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

DOI: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The purpose of government is *NOT* to regulate our rights. The purpose of our government is to secure our rights and secure the Blessings of Liberty.

To effect this:

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law"
Amendment 2: "shall not be infringed"
Amendment 3: "No Soldier shall"
Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure", "shall not be violated"
Amendment 5: "No person shall be held", "nor shall any person be subject", "nor shall be compelled"
Amendment 6: "the accused shall enjoy"

All the rest of the Bill of Rights are the same. The Constitution was meant to *keep* the government from regulating our rights, not to give it the power to regulate our rights!

 

The NRA is *still* the foremost leader in the teaching safe gun use, including the certification of CCW instructors and in training law enforcement! It's Eddie Eagle program which teaches children to *not* touch a gun is the only program of its kind in the US.

The article is correct, the NRA is why we have the effective regulation that we have today.

The operative word here is "EFFECTIVE". None of the restrictions being offered by the Marxist Democrats today would be effective at anything except denying guns to law abiding citizens. The NRA didn't leave the Marxist Democrats, the Marxist Democrats left the NRA!

Here's an opinion piece on why the Marxist Democrats are losing the majority of elected seats in this country -
townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/10/09/watch-bill-maher-torches-democrats-for-sucking-at-politics-what-we-do-makes-pe-n2392445

"He spoke eloquently about the over-regulation ethos that is the hallmark characteristic of liberalism." (the speaker was Bill Maher)

"“It makes people hate us. It makes me hate us,” (maher speaking)

"“People want to drain the swamp, not ban Big Gulps," Maher added. "Yes, I understand you [Mr. or Mrs. Progressive] have 1,000 good ideas on how I should live my life, reject my privilege, and sort my recycling. "

*YOU*, Natty Bumpo and the other Marxist Democrats, do *NOT* have the imprimatur to tell me how to live my life, what rights I have, and how my rights should be regulated by government.

Our government was *NOT* instituted to give us our rights, to limit our rights, or to tell my wife how she can protect herself the best!

Get over yourself!

 

How much malarky can you sling on this forum?

It is the GOP today that is *for* the common working man. The Marxist Democrats started leaving them behind 50 years ago.

The evidence is legion! Trade deals that allowed foreign competitors to undercut US products. Taxes and regulation that forced jobs overseas. Open borders allowing low-paid slave labor into the US to undercut American wages. A welfare system that encourages the breakdown of the nuclear family leading to widespread poverty.

You are so willfully ignorant that you are totally blind to where the Marxist Democrats have taken us over the past 50 years. The people have finally had enough!

 

Fanatical gun fanciers invest an inordinate mystique in their jujus. They are mechanical contrivances that are employed for good and ill. We, as a society are capable of reducing the latter significantly in the interests of the citizenry that should be as safe from firearm carnage as folks in advanced nations.

I dismiss those who plead impotence in that endeavour, but welcome any practicable measures to impede easy access to firearms by evildoers. What can be done to reduce the frequent occurrence of firearm slaughter in the US? How can we confront the permissiveness that allows criminals easy access to guns? Are there measures we can take to reduce the disturbing number of firearm suicides?

 

That's because you simply know nothing about the issue. Do you *honestly* believe that if I handed you a .30-30 lever action rifle and a handful of bullets that you couldn't figure it out in less than 60 seconds?

Of course we are!

You betcha! I could *KILL* more people with my bolt-action, Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk1 rifle in ten minutes than the LV shooter did with his AR-15s.

The speed record for that rifle is 38 shots in a 12in square at 300 yards in one minute using iron sights. Even the common British soldier was expected to be able to fire 20-30 shots per minute (although not that accurately). I assure you that being shot with that .303 bullet would be far more deadly than the .223 from the AR-15. Had I been using something like a Remington 700 bolt-action rifle in .30-06 caliber, especially with a scope, even *more* people would have died.

You only show your ignorance on the subject with statements like this!

And here comes the slippery slope. From AR-15s to Lee-Enfield rifles of WWII vintage! Exactly where would you stop?

The fact that the AR-15 is the *perfect* home defense tool for my 5'2" wife! It is safer to use inside an occupied house than any pistol caliber above a .380 and is far easier for her to use than any pistol above a .380 because of less recoil and muzzle flash.

People like you *NEVER* consider the other law abiding citizens that would be affected. All you know is that the Law of the Jungle where the stronger prey on the weaker is how we should live!

I can hit a 5 gallon bucket at 100 yards with my .22cal, single action revolver eight out of 10 times. It isn't as deadly as larger calibers but there is nothing that is inherently "less" accurate about any pistol caliber.

I can reload *any* of my pistols just as fast as I can reload my AR-15. The AR-15 doesn't "spray" more than one bullet per trigger pull even with a bump stock.

Once again you are showing your total ignorance on this subject. All you seem to know are Marxist Democrat talking point LIES.

My anger drives nothing. *I* have spent 60 years shooting everything from BB guns, to revolvers, to pistols, to semi-automatic rifles, to bolt action rifles, to black power revolvers. I know how to take them apart, how to clean them, and how to put them back together. I know how to modify several of them to make them more reliable and efficient.

*YOU* don't know even what a semi-automatic rifle is. All you know is your fear of the unknown. The answer is not going to be to somehow make the unknown go away, the answer is to actually face the unknown and learn something about it!

Once again you simply have *NO* idea what you are talking about. Even the police don't use a TASER or pepper spray as a defensive tool, it is too unreliable. And a stronger person will almost always beat a weaker person in any kind of physical confrontation - and that *is* what you want for my wife. You simply don't care if she gets raped by a stronger man as long as she doesn't have a gun!

Then why do you advocate for putting them in that role?

 

Even Marx recognized the indolent will be indolent. That is why he believed in the meme "if you don't work, you don't eat"!

You haven't shown *ANY* knowledge of Marxism at all! You don't apparently even know that Marx thought that those that didn't work didn't eat!

No kidding, Sherlock. Did you get that from wikipedia? Next time try to phrase it in your *OWN* words.

 

Really? The Morris-Minor was designed for sport? The Mini-cooper was designed for sport? People race these cars at the track all the time? I've even seen people racing old Covairs on open racing day at the track!

As usual, you simply don't know what you are talking about! Why do you *always* make such claims that are so obviously wrong?

Really? Jeeps of all shapes and sizes are taken off-road for sport ALL THE TIME. And yet they also do well in normal *and* lousy driving conditions! And you think a Jeep Grand Cherokee would be lousy in a mass killing terrorist attack? Lousier than what? A semi-tractor? You *do* know they race those also, right?

Just continue to show your ignorance. It's no skin off my backside! Guns are designed for the purpose of the user. Whether it is to put food on the table, to protect against violent attackers, *and* for sporting purposes. The fact that you simply cannot accept that only shows your willful blindness.

How can it be worked out? Force them to use a crossbow instead as a hunting tool? Again, what do you do with a sow with eight half-grown pigs?

You are *NOT* God. You don't get to dictate to everyone what the best tool for every purpose is. You *ESPECIALLY* don't get to dictate to my wife what she should be using to protect herself. You should go look up the word "hubris" sometime!

 

If you are being sent off to the Eastern front to fight Nazi's you are *NOT* going to need a broom or shovel. But if the government is not going to give you a gun you might just want to bring your own.

It was *YOU* that said Stalin didn't disarm the people, implying the people were armed. They weren't armed. And Stalin as well as the czar's before him made sure of that!

 

I said; "Ok, so you are *NOT* advocating for banning guns then, right?"

A QUESTION is NOT a strawman! It is asking for a clarification!

You can tell the person that has been caught by their flailing around about things they know nothing about. You can't even get the definition of a strawman argumentative fallacy correct!

AND YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION!!

You've never *watched* or *listened* to Hannity. He uses QUOTES all the time! He is *famous* for his montages of liberals on his TV show![/QUOTE]

 

The Constitution is a Framework for the making of laws. The Declaration is the Document you should consult if you want to know for what purpose government exists. That purpose is to ensure LIFE. Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are just functions of that. Keeping the populace safe is the major purpose of civilization. ALL civilizations and ANY nations, anywhere and anytime exist so that life will not become "nasty, brutal, coarse and short". That we are even having this discussion of what most people say is totally obvious common sense to anyone shows the pure murderous insanity which the gun lobby is now trying to foist on us.

Please, tell me how licensing of firearms use would threaten anyone's freedom, except the freedom of insane people to kill us.

 

Really? You think the Founding Fathers were gun fanciers with jujus?


" They are mechanical contrivances that are employed for good and ill. We, as a society are capable of reducing the latter significantly in the interests of the citizenry that should be as safe from firearm carnage as folks in advanced nations.[/quote]

And the idiot left, like you, want us to believe the ill outweighs the good. No matter how often the mechanical devices are used in self-defense it will *never* be enough to outweigh the ill in your eyes. If my wife gets raped by a physically stronger attacker why that is ok as long as she can't use a gun to defend herself!

The ONLY practicable measures *have* to be focused on the person and not on the tool.

Most of the criminals using guns for violent crime are located in urban killing zones run by Marxist Democrats. The issue is *not* the easy access to guns but the permissiveness that allows the criminals to do their crimes without any fear of justice. Only 25% of the murders in Chicago are ever solved. The answer is to focus more on solving these murders and getting the violent criminals off the street - the exact opposite of what the Marxist Democrats are doing in trying to get criminals *out* of jail. Murders in these areas are CLIMBING even though they have very restrictive gun laws. They aren't climbing because of more guns in criminal hands but because of more criminals committing more murders!

The only way to reduce suicides is to focus on the mental health in the US. Japan has almost no guns but their suicide rate is higher than the US. It's the same for *lots* of countries. If you want to commit suicide there are all kinds of alternatives. You will *never* reduce suicides by focusing on guns.

 

I QUOTED YOU THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".

Not to give us our rights. Not to regulate our rights. Not to suppress our rights. TO SECURE THEM. Meaning the rights exist *before* government, not after!

How do you secure rights when you advocate for the Law of the Jungle where might makes right?

No, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are EQUAL in stature to life!

But *NOT* by abrogating the rights of free men! For you therefore violate the right to liberty!

This is the *exact* argument used by every dictator that has ever lived! The only way to insure safety is to have an authoritarian state. It requires changing the meme Americans live under from "you can do what you want as long as it isn't illegal" to one of "you can only do what the law specifically allows" and then coupling that with "Big Brother" to make sure no one does anything that isn't allowed.

I asked you if you have to get a license to speak and you didn't answer. I asked you if you had to get a license to have an attorney and you didn't answer. I asked you if you had to have a license in order to not incriminate yourself and you didn't answer.

What rights do *YOU* know of where we have to have a license in order to exercise a Creator-given, natural right? What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

 

I apologise, I went and read the definition of a semi-automatic rifle. It appears it just has the ability to reload it's bullets much more quickly.

However, this does not change my opinion on having restrictions on guns that help to make killing faster or easier.

Ultimately, all guns do is eliminate any options to de-escalate a confrontation. And although a mugger is a scum bag, their life is still worth more than your I-Phone, IMO.

As for personal defense from physical harm. I have lived nearly 40 years and have never needed a gun to protect myself. I use other means to make sure I don't stand out to burglars and such.

Does your wife do the same?

Yes, your anger does affect you. All I have to do is read your posts. You refuse to accept any opinion that does not agree with yours.

You want to arm everyone you can. You don't care about the people that don't want to have to own a gun.

You want conflicts to end via a gun fight, 'Texas Shoot-Out' style. I will vote to make sure that never happens, and I am sure many more will do the same.

Guns should ALWAYS be the last resort.

 

In other words you come on here and castigate gun owners without knowing a single thing about guns.

A semi-auto pistol will reload its bullets faster than any rifle. The action doesn't have to travel as far because of the shorter bullets. In fact, a revolver is also a semi-auto firearm, one round fired per trigger pull. Are you going to ban all handguns as well?

How do you deescalate a confrontation between my wife and large man intent on raping her? How do you deescalate a confrontation between an armed home intruder with no compunctions about killing and myself?

You pick a non-violent crime and try to equate it with a violent crime. So much for your logic!

And I've had intruders in my home twice over the past 35 years I've lived here. So I shouldn't have a gun because you've never needed one? If you can't see the hole in that logic you'll never understand!

Misogyny squared! And here you are castigating conservatives!

No, I refuse to accept any opinion that is not based on facts but is, instead, based on pure emotions like fear!

And here we go with the stereotyping the left always resorts to. I simply don't care if you don't want to own a gun. But I *do* care when you come on here and tell me that *I* don't need one and my *wife* does not need one!

Get lost, troll! There are two main reasons for the drop in crime since the 90s, putting violent criminals in jail and concealed carry. Criminals are far more reticent about committing a crime against a person when they don't know if the person is armed. That means those that *do* carry concealed are protecting *YOU* as well as themselves!

You won't find a law-abiding citizen that says otherwise, especially gun owners. But when seconds count the police are only minutes away. And that means they will *always* be minutes away from protecting you!

 

What.... you want me to google it for you?

They can and should be banned from owning guns. Just like children are.

Wow! You were in quite a party, weren't you?

 

Really! *I* am the most dishonest individual on this board? Here is the exchange. You are selectively quoting OUT OF CONTEXT trying to make it look like I was misquoting you! How dishonest can you be?

You said: "Wrong! Cars that are used for sport are designed for sport"

And then I said: "Really? The Morris-Minor was designed for sport? The Mini-cooper was designed for sport? People race these cars at the track all the time? I've even seen people racing old Covairs on open racing day at the track!"

Then you said: "They don't do well in normal road conditions. And they most certainly be lousy in a mass killing terrorist attack"

And then I said: "Really? Jeeps of all shapes and sizes are taken off-road for sport ALL THE TIME. And yet they also do well in normal *and* lousy driving conditions! And you think a Jeep Grand Cherokee would be lousy in a mass killing terrorist attack? Lousier than what? A semi-tractor? You *do* know they race those also, right?"

Then you said: "Most are not even allowed on the road, because they might kill people. Stock cars are used in sport, but they are not designed for sport. Guns are designed for killing. If you mean "bullseye" sports, I'm sure they can certainly design a gun that will do the job, but won't be easy to use killing a large number of people. And if they can't... well... sorry... Peoples' lives are more important."

And I said: "Just continue to show your ignorance. It's no skin off my backside! Guns are designed for the purpose of the user. Whether it is to put food on the table, to protect against violent attackers, *and* for sporting purposes. The fact that you simply cannot accept that only shows your willful blindness."

You are just still just plain WRONG! Lot's of stock cars are designed for sport as well. Jeeps come with winches and skid plates for sport - BUT ARE SOLD FOR USE ON THE ROAD, i.e. a stock car! They are *designed* for sport! Pickup trucks come with lift kits, 30in tires, brush guards, and 4-wheel drive for use off-road in sport situations but are sold for use on the road - i.e. a stock pickup! But they are designed for sport. For Pete's sake, the first pickup I ever owned never even drove on the road. It was used to haul the dogs out into the field to hunt quail and pheasant, to haul hay to the cattle, to carry people down to the fishing hole, to haul seed and fertilizer out to the planting fields, etc! It was a stock pickup but was designed to do all kinds of things.

One more time: GUNS ARE DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE USER.

Stop lying about me. Your posts and my posts can be seen by all with just a little scrolling. I simply don't know who you think you were trying to fool!

 

Not entirely unreasonable, though I don't know that anyone wants people who've been certified violently insane to have guns.