You bluster. I see no references or anything else to back your assertions. Obviously, logic and the scientific method don't appear anywhere in your discourse.
I understand your confusion. Your reasoning is, more guns mean fewer gun crimes. Like, more gasoline means fewer fires and more cars on the road mean fewer accidents. You guys portray yourselves as sophisticated. Your sophistication is, being able to field strip a Glock faster then someone else makes you more of an expert on gun violence.
Why would anyone want to continue with you when all you do is respond with nonsense and personal attacks? No matter what facts anyone posts, you deny it. But here is one fact: I saved 15 percent on my car insurance by switching to Geico.
So, let's do nothing cause the damage is done. Is that the theory ? There are tens of thousands of machine guns produced yearly, there are tens of thousands registered machine guns out there. Very few are used in criminal activity. The cost is incidental to the drug cartels as they have plenty of money. Do they still keep them around in hiding ? Sure. But they aren't used in mass murders and only two have died in 80 years from registered machine guns. http://chartsbin.com/view/1922 There are many other weapons out there that are highly regulated that are just too difficult to put in the hands of criminals. The FBI has reward programs that make it very difficult for criminals to keep these weapons around, even amoung other criminals.o You have done this several times and I keep giving you the same referrals and the same solutions that work. That you pretend they can't be controlled just means you are in the bubble. The number of guns out there are no more or less then the number of cars. We track them all of the time. In the bubble.......
OMG Now that there literally made me laugh out loud! Beyond the Geico comment, you are 100 percent right, the anti-nutters consistently let the truth bounce right off of them. - - - Updated - - - We haven't done "nothing" but don't let that stop you from doubling down on failure, eh? Lost in space.....
"Haven't done nothing" means you have done something ? What is that ? You named your kids "Ogive" and Meplat".
Try not to get lost in space on this one but just how many laws are there out there already that make what you are describing illegal for the practicing criminal to obtain weapons.....and you want to double down on that failure...answer that one then we'll talk about your obliviousness to what we've already done.
As much as you support all convicted criminals, the insane and kids getting guns without restriction. If you confess to that, I confess to being a gun banner.
I became a 2A advocate after reading our supreme law of the land. I believe gun lovers simply don't love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns or they would have no problem becoming more well regulated.
I am not trying to take away your right to continue bathing in gun grease just to smell like a man or thinking that higher education is knowing what the prefix of Smith and Wesson serial numbers represent. That is your God given natural right as much as it is not to use pyrodex. Breathe all the black powder fumes you want and don't wait 30 seconds to blow your thumb off when your flintlock miss fires.
Gun banner comment gun banner comment and misdirect from actual rebuttal to response made by gun banner in question. Lost in space......... - - - Updated - - - no denial....gun banner you are.
Not only would gun confiscation be unconstitutional, but nearly 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of private citizens are logistically impossible to seize. The moderate left and even some of the moderate right want universal background checks, some sort of licensing requirements for military grade weapons, and other reasonable restrictions on weapons that protect both average citizens and sportsmen. If that's gun banning, your vocabulary is limited by your eyesight and your ability to understand English grammar.
Guess that was too complicated to understand. Too much to think about ? Let's keep it simple then. Let's just ban guns from lunatics and criminals...and small town guys.
How trollish. Admit it, you're a gun banner. You know you are, you just try to "appear" moderate, but you don't know how to do it. We got all the ignorant gun laws we need and then some.
See now I thought it would take me partially agreeing with you for you to acknowledge me again. There is no different procedure. We do bring additional charges, but the underlying murder prosecution never changes. In addition, the feds do very little to prosecute gun crime. That burden falls (as it properly should) on the states. We rarely involve the feds in any gun prosecution, and in the rare case where we ask for an ATF trace, it is never done to determine whether the murderer legally or illegally obtained the gun. Thats just TV drama law. But I forget you are the self-proclaimed expert.... Now here is the thing, and I want to see if you will agree with this statement of principle: It is never the proper role of government to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. I have prosecuted several homicides committed both with and without firearms. I fight gun crime almost every day in my job. But I do not do so by punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. What I mean by this is: I do not claim any greater powers of discernment into the heart of my fellow man than the average governmental minister. I dare say that neither one of us can look at two people and intuitively guess which one secretly lacks the moral compass that tells us it is wrong to kill our fellow man absent the necessity of self-defense or defense of others. And what I object to is anyone who tells me that because he (or the government) cannot distinguish good citizens from those who might become bad ones, then the proper course is to deny everyone a fundamental right. Wasnt it the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalrics comment (preceding the sack of Beziers during the Cathar Crusade) in response to the supposed difficulty in telling which members of the town were Catholics and which ones were detested Cathars: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius, which translates roughly to: Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His. If you reword this in context of current main-stream gun control thought the argument becomes: deny them all the freedom to possess firearms, for not even the Lord himself knows which ones might make an ill use of them. My natural inclination is to recoil from such thoughts. I was born to my freedom and raised to respect it. I was not cast off from my mothers apron strings as a toddler only to seek them out again as an adult in the form of a paternalistic government seeking to tell me it knows what is best for methat it must presume to deny me a right to protect me from myself and from my fellow man. This is so for me because I believe the choice of firearm ownership is a fundamental natural right of a free people. The right requires no justification. The right carries with it no governmental preconditions that must be met before it can be exercised. This is my belief. I also believe that the right comes with a concurrent duty of peaceful exercise. This is the only condition for the free exercise of the rightthat all who do so respect the social contract to live peaceably with their neighborsthat they do not engage in or threaten to engage in acts of violence. It is a right of peaceful, lawful possession and use. There is not, and never has been, a right to use any weapon to harm another without the socially accepted justifications of defense of self or others. This is why these additional laws that severely punish gun violence are both effective and constitutional. But you do not take away the right from one because of the actions of another. To put it simply, I believe that every person has a right to choose whether or not to have a firearm, and making the choice to have a firearm brings with it the choice to obey the duty of peaceful possessionwith the full knowledge that we can also choose to forfeit that right (and our very liberty) by our conductand with the security of knowing that my constitution does not permit the conduct of another to be used as a justification for abolishing my right. So long as a free citizen is capable of obeying this duty, then in my opinion no government (and no person) has the moral authority to deny him the right. If they make a criminal misuse of the firearm, then you punish them for the act. You do not punish those who did not know of, counsel, or participate in the criminal conduct of others under the guise that they must be their brothers keeper. To me it is the height of folly to attempt to abolish the right that over 61 million people peacefully exercise every day because a minute fraction of people who have access to firearms choose to commit crimes with them. Instead, I believe you punish those who commit the crimes, and you work to solve the social and economic issues that drive the crime. That is my philosophy. Now clearly you believe government should be given more power over the RKBA for the purpose of protecting us. The problem is I see no evidence that you have thought these proposals through. Take your claim that universal background checks is a common sense measure. By common sense you presumably mean both not-to-very restrictive of the RKBA and somehow effective in combatting crime. Tell me then, are you prepared to explain how such a law would be effective? I tell you now it will fail, and I am prepared to show you why.
