Mind you, this is the same brain trust that says people who wear masks are afraid and are a bunch of sheep.
So, Robert Aaron Long
- Thread starter gleap1969
- Start date
Mind you, this is the same brain trust that says people who wear masks are afraid and are a bunch of sheep.
I've seen goat herding dirt farmers fight our military with 1970s weaponry. So yeah...the military is small. If an all out civilian vs military somehow were to take place, the military would be overrun pretty quickly. Hard to fight in urban environments.
Anybody who hunts with a 223 pistol is not serious about it. Maybe get drunk and go shoot hogs at 50 yards or something. As was said, the round isn't enough to bring down big game. I'm not sure it's even legal in many states.
And yeah, I meant it's a beast because with a muzzle brake it was loud and the fireball was impressive. What are you referring to?
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again.
So like a hundred idiots rush into the capitol building and somehow that means roughly 100m gun owners are helpless against the military?
And yes, the number of guns in America is part of the reason we have gun crime. I already stated that. But limiting magazine capacity isn't doing anything about that, is it? No, it won't, it's just part of the federal government's power creep.
"A lady may realize today something she didn’t know a couple of days ago, and thinks she needs to protect herself “today”.It is any rifle that you assault something with?The litmus test for stupidity is gun control…whether reviewing the data, engaging in hypothetical logical conclusions based upon reality, actually looking at individual cases or just understanding the purpose of the 2nd not to mention the historical data of gun control in many countries…or even just having an idea of what happened in the Meadows Massacre here in the USA.
Gun control has NOTHING to do with preventing shootings, but everything to do with control and why the 2nd exists that stands a bit in the way of total power and control some desire. A lady may realize today something she didn’t know a couple of days ago, and thinks she needs to protect herself “today”. That lady had months to decide who she would vote for and how to make it happen. The good Lord may have placed a limit on our intelligence, but none whatsoever on our gullibility.
A week before the Atlanta killings a congressman made a speech on the house floor making this very same argument.
An ex husband threatens a woman and she decides she needs a gun.....today. First of all, nothing happens today. If it's an abusive ex husband has been going on for some time. What other situations are you talking about with this woman? A neighbor? Gang members? What? In any of those situations you would call the POLICE. That's what they are there for. And yeah, sometimes law enforcement doesn't get it right, the husband should be locked up but wasn't.
So the answer is this woman should buy a gun? If she doesn't own one, the chances are great she has no idea how to operate one. But lets give this untrained gun novice a weapon and expect her to protect herself from a violent ex or anybody else in a life and death situation. She can't load a mag and can't find the safety and can't hit a barn from 5 yards but this gun is gonna save her life? It's more likely the gun pisses off her attacker when she forgets to chamber a round and she ends up in a worse situation. Of all the arguments against background checks and waiting periods this has got to be the one that makes the least common sense.
Let's take the flipside. The Atlanta shooter wasn't worried about someone coming after him. He had a sex addiction........and decided the best way to deal with that problem was to eliminate the temptation, murder the "sex workers". This is an example of your "people issue" you mentioned in another post.
So what did our system do in this situation? It allowed a man........who by your own argument is the problem.......to go into a store and buy a handgun and kill 8 people........all within a few hours. NOW WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT MAKES ANY FREAKIN SENSE?
Do you think if the Atlanta shooter had to wait 3 or 7 or 10 days he might have reconsidered his decision? I understand he was a Christian.......what if he talked to his pastor or said his prayers or had a vision from God? The point is when you make people wait you reduce the chances of an impulse killing. The added benefit is the authorities can fully check out his background. If it's only a "people issue" as you say, why the hell would you not want to CHECK THE BACKGROUND OF THE PEOPLE BUYING THE GUNS?
This where you and others here say you have no problem with background checks or waiting periods blahblahblah.
Then in the next post you will say "gun laws take guns out of the citizen's hands" and "second amendment" and "slippery slope" etc. You all say you are for all these reasonable gun measures but cry foul when it's time to institute them.
You can't say we have a "people issue" but then object to keeping the the guns away from the people with issues. Total bullshit.
There is a reason there was a question or post about assault rifles/weapons.
In short, there is basically no difference in performance from an assault rifle/weapon or rifles used for hunting/sport.
The rules/laws governing it are largely cosmetic.
Automatic weapons are entirely different and fall under a different law.
Bob, I said what I did. I don't need you to interpret what you wish I had said through your crystal ball. Here is a death that recently happened...and I hate providing things just to have a recent example. Nor do I wish to pretend that a background chekc prevents someone from killing another. Damn near any woman without a gun could be killed by the bare hands of a man. It doesn't take an engineer to understand that...just a brain that hasn't already straight-lined or told what to feel. I happen to know people that were out with the couple before and one person that may have been her best friend. I had a friend that coached football that sold the house he lived in to these people...and know exactly where it is.
The husband killed his wife and then killed himself. They were going through a divorce. Just last fall the husband put in a $80,000 pool. Prior to him becoming a democrat and cross-dressing, he was a police officer in Florida. His dad made a lot of money with computers (lenovo I believe). She had just taken some kids to school and never had her gun with her...that she purchased for protection. He got into the house while she was out and killed her when she returned. He shot her in the neck...some of the friends "think he maybe did" that so she could have an open casket. He then texted her friend to tell her not to let the kids come home from school. He then killed himself. Her friend called the cops worried that she was killed and the cops found the bodies. Now if PurdueFan1 reads this he will know exactly what I am mentioning, but he will not know the other things I wrote. Only the good people get hurt with some of the foolish gun control as has been historically shown. Had she had the gun with her when he was in the house I have no idea if there was a moment she might have lived had she had a gun...I do know what happened when she didn't have her gun. Cops can't protect you...they just wrap the yellow tape afterwards...and criminals willing to kill someone really don't care about some lesser law, nor how to get one of the over probably the 300 million guns in existence. A couple of weeks ago I got lost and ended up in this forum and excused myself out mentioning a killing...the link is the event...
Murder/suicide
I never once endorsed background checks nor waiting periods. I mentioned slippery slopes because that is what gun control is with respect to the federal government taking more power from the people.
Your problem Bob, is the thinking that more rules mean less problems. More rules just means less freedom for the illusion of less problems/safety.
You story is tragic.........and doesn't address a damn thing I talked about. I'm not sure what your point is. But a few questions are in order.
Why did an abusive ex husband have a gun? Your argument is..........he should be allowed to have one. And she should have one. If she had it when she walked in the door, you think she still survives? Or maybe she would have had a fighting chance yes?
Despite your yellow tape comment about the police, they take spousal abuse seriously and may have been able to help. But portraying them as incompetent does help your argument.
Did she have any training with the weapon? Doesn't sound like it........if she bought it for protection but left it at home.
What was the "foolish gun control" that got this good woman killed? Kind of ironic that some of that gun control might have saved this woman's life.
And yes, a man can kill a woman with his bare hands. So what? Should we make it easier for him? Does she stand a better chance of surviving if she kicks him in the nuts and runs away or takes a bullet from 10' away? It's like the whole knife argument, stupid as hell.
In your reply why don't you actually talk about the idea of keeping the guns out of the hands of violent or disturbed people while still maintaining the right to bear arms. It can happen.
No Bob...it can't happen. You can't keep a gun out of the hands of someone that wants one, or a crossbow…or a pressure cooker…or a pipe bomb. You might as well believe that Peter Pan can sprinkle some pixie dust to fix everything. Therein lies another “feeling” outside reality…which is finding quite a foothold in “some” political ideologues or lemmings today. If someone wanted to kill someone today they could do it and could do it if the victim was unarmed even easier. Actually someone could state that “not owning a firearm” was irresponsible not only to the individual, but the family and neighbors, but to each their own. FWIW, whether not adhering to existing laws or working around them most…even both sides know that “gun control” would NOT stop the killings that show up from time to time. There is not quite a half a billion firearms in the USA and estimated by those “willing to state” close to 400,000,000 firearms. So a lot more firearms than people. If each “firearm” killed one person in the USA, you would still have a third not shot. If firearms were the problem…it would sure seem obvious. Now there is also over 100,000,000 people willing to disclose they have a firearm. It doesn’t take a whole lot of depth to understand that if “people” and “their guns” were a problem…shootings would be a hell of a lot bigger problem than those pushing the feel good for votes or sinister plans if that was your lean.
So when we have politicians placating the ignorant (and there are many) with the following three possible explanations, which should make us “feel”, or "think" is preferred?
1)Politicians that sincerely in spite of evidence, lacking in the relevant knowledge in a domain to make a higher level thought somehow “feel” gun control would stop needless killings with no intrusion into the individual rights held by millions that had no part in the killings even if ignoring the constitution.
2)Politicians that actually know better, but don’t care. Politicians wanting even more power in a sincere belief that their narrow expertise knows the right answer outside their expertise, rather than the masses, even when that politician is ignorant of the area being discussed.
)3 Politicians that have sinister means to accomplish their desires and removing guns removes the obstacles of their plans...a more fundamental change in teh country
Even if the numbers were grossly exaggerated (and I don’t know that) the virus from the China lab has killed more than all the murders in the USA that we could pretend would ‘t happen if there were no guns. Play on the emotions, divided people by “groups” for political reasons (ever wonder “why” the “groups” are divided as they are?) to gain power and personal wealth.
No Bob…you can’t keep someone from killing others particularly if the those to be killed are defenseless…and if you only brought that concept to guns…you couldn’t keep them away from guns if they wanted.
...and below is an area of interest it seems...
Sure mentally ill (disturbed) seems reasonable as a measure…and is already in place, but what about when it gets politicized? When you have people that want to control from cradle to grave and the neurosis prevalent…what would prevent gun laws to be applied to democrats primarily…many of no risk? What about Schizophrenia? When we have those that shutdown the USA for a year and then have the current border crisis or the racist cry when Trump wanted to stop some flights into the USA. Are those not Schizophrenia symptoms or some other form of illogic? Would that mental illness find agreement with many democrats? Why should those democrats with not a hint of risk be penalized? We have quite a chasm between what you believe and my thoughts, but that is okay. I have no heartburn with you believing what you desire.
What, no suggested reading from the book of the month club after lengthy word vomit? Very disappointing
You might as well believe that Peter Pan can sprinkle some pixie dust to fix everything.
You realize that @BuilderBob6 does believe this, that is why he voted for Joe Biden and believes everything bad that has happened to the entire planet and maybe the universe in the last 1,000 years is all Donald Trump's fault
Didn't refer to you specifically.........does that mean you don't think background checks or waiting periods are a good idea?
The slippery slope is another BS argument. What do you know about the history of gun control in our country?
The assault weapons ban expired in '04 and has not been renewed. Laws in '03 and '05 protected gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits by victims of gun violence. You know about the Heller decision in '08?
Full auto was essentially banned in '86, Brady was done in like '93 and assault ban was '94. The slippery slope was a valid argument. Did it continue? Where's it at now? More than 25 years after the assault weapons ban.........if your argument was accurate........would we be where we're at now?
So more rules just give the illusion of safety at the expense of freedom? Does wearing a safety bely take away your freedom........cause it sure as hell makes you safer. You're probably an anti masker, but the same argument could be made there.
You should probably know someone better before you start telling them what their problems are.
Last edited:
Fully understandable. Many people don’t like books and goes to show that “Reading is fun” never took hold in many. No surprises there, but expected a counter on mental illness or disturbed which would have been legit, but the whole point was that mental illness would have political leanings. It’s okay though the baseline assumptions are so far apart that reconciliation is impossible
