It's the Guns

a reply to: ErEhWoN

If arms must be raised is defense of freedom you have not lost until you give up.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

After reading your OP it was obvious you don’t like guns. But I really didn’t get much more than that out of it .

I’m gonna drop one fact on you .

If you tally up all the mass shooting casualties for the next 10 years .

It will pale in comparison to the first three months of mandatory gun confiscation .

What an idiotic and simplistic argument.

We have a society that inculcated nihilism and meaninglessness into an entire generation, gave them drugs, filled their heads with selfish victimhood as a virtue, and then unleashed them on the world with instructions to right the wrongs in their life by extracting "justice" from "equity".

Neither you or the writers of this article understand this problem. But please tell us all how gun-bans will solve nihilism and meaninglessness, especially millennial boys and men.

a reply to: Edumakated

But, it fits the gun grabbers' narrative.

Reasonable people are waking up to the media's tactics and lies and getting smarter (I hope). Every time someone quotes these "stats", a reasonable edumakated person regarding actual facts should correct them.

a reply to: Ahabstar

You also have to take into account that they are now using justified self defense cases as mass shooting incidents. Such as this one from Yuma, Arizona earlier this year..
www.pressreader.com...

Ban ammo rounds.

Let this militia have muskets and shot with some gunpowder, just as those founding fathers intended.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: shooterbrody
Yep, well-regulated...

Got it

You know, I hate to say it but that may in fact be their out on the whole deal, "well regulated." Everyone knows that the people in charge like to cherry pick their laws and affairs - look at the ObamaCare(tm) "tax" fiasco.

The question is whether or not A. Gun owners would go along with "well regulated" and B. The nutcases in Washington would actually stoop so low as to not want an outright confiscation program.

originally posted by: Tortuga
Ban ammo rounds.

Let this militia have muskets and shot with some gunpowder, just as those founding fathers intended.

Fine. Start using parchment and a quill to write, as the Founding Fathers had intended, stop using the internet at once!

originally posted by: Tortuga
Ban ammo rounds.

Let this militia have muskets and shot with some gunpowder, just as those founding fathers intended.

So based on that logic, when they said freedom of the press they didn't mean the internet, television, or radio? They could have only envisioned press with a ink quill and paper, right?

originally posted by: Tortuga
Ban ammo rounds.

Let this militia have muskets and shot with some gunpowder, just as those founding fathers intended.

The intention of the founding fathers was to arm the population with the same class of weapons as their enemy (in that case the British Regular Army).

Do we have that same equivalency today?

No....we don't. Get educated before you post that drivel....


DENY IGNORANCE

originally posted by: billxam

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: shooterbrody
Yep, well-regulated...

Got it

You know, I hate to say it but that may in fact be their out on the whole deal, "well regulated." Everyone knows that the people in charge like to cherry pick their laws and affairs - look at the ObamaCare(tm) "tax" fiasco.

The question is whether or not A. Gun owners would go along with "well regulated" and B. The nutcases in Washington would actually stoop so low as to not want an outright confiscation program.

Well regulated does NOT mean more laws.


It means, well ordered, trained, and kept in working order. They even clarified it in that amendment by stating quite openly, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They meant to clarify "regulated" to not be infringing laws.


How many times must this be stated??


DENY IGNORANCE

Colt just announced that they will stop making AR-15 rifles for civilian use, claiming that there is already enough of them in the market.

We don’t have to ban them, just have to stop making them (for everyone except law enforcement and the military).

ETA: Now, if all the other gun manufacturers could be persuaded to follow suit, maybe the same reasoning could be applied, industry-wide, to all the other automatic and semi-automatic guns out there as well?


Colt doesn’t seem too concerned that its decision in any way violates anyone’s rights...And they’re a gun Manufacturer!

Was that a disturbance in the Force I just felt?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Tortuga
Ban ammo rounds.

Let this militia have muskets and shot with some gunpowder, just as those founding fathers intended.

Fine. Start using parchment and a quill to write, as the Founding Fathers had intended, stop using the internet at once!

Last I looked we didn't have hundreds of people being killed with Quills. I carried a gun for all of my service life, and I get that you won't give up your toys. But be honest, it's got nothing to do with the founding fathers, you just like having them.

To look at the other side for a moment, people drink and drive then kill people. Should we ban drinking, should we ban driving? I also get the argument that gun bans only take the guns from the good people and leave the criminals with guns. If I lived in the US then I would be sure to have a gun for unexpected visitors.

I really don't see a way they can get your guns off you, but banning ammunition could be a way to start. I'm not advocating that BTW.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Tortuga
Ban ammo rounds.

Let this militia have muskets and shot with some gunpowder, just as those founding fathers intended.

The intention of the founding fathers was to arm the population with the same class of weapons as their enemy (in that case the British Regular Army).

Do we have that same equivalency today?

No....we don't. Get educated before you post that drivel....


DENY IGNORANCE

You want nukes, for christ sake you are mad.

Is a Winchester model 1907 okay. I mean it was first released for public sale in 1907. You could even order it out of a catalog and have the mailman deliver it back then. It’s much older than that one rifle made in 1958, which oddly enough could be mail ordered back then as well.

I mean it has wood stocks and uses a much larger .351 round instead of .223, but doesn’t look as scary. This picture just happens to have the 15 round detachable magazine, but 20 rounders were made as well and the French Army made theirs fully automatic after purchase.

a reply to: Tortuga

You don’t understand, it’s a Right.

You simply cannot remove freedoms, rights.

That’s what authoritarians do. That’s what tyrants do.

a reply to: Tortuga

Your strawmen are poorly constructed.

Do better.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tortuga

You don’t understand, it’s a Right.

You simply cannot remove freedoms, rights.

That’s what authoritarians do. That’s what tyrants do.

We used to have democracy here, they can do what they want.

a reply to: Tortuga

Considering guns are not even close to the top 10 causes of death in the US, we really should address the others before we start tearing up the bill of rights even more.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Where there is a market there will be a product made by someone.