"You won't take my guns!!!"

[gasmitty]

Dude you have got to be kidding me. The stated goal of the gun controllers is to save lives, to prevent pointless deaths. The AWB is PROVEN to have NO effect on the mortality rate in this country. So YES, it is perfectly valid, because it puts their idiotic nonsense into perspective. They are focusing on something that people have a very low risk for meeting their end from, and they should be called to task for it. Wake up.

And to bolster your argument, look how well "gun free school zones" worked.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[1MoreGoodGuy]

"Our Founding Fathers would have been shooting by now."

[xXxplosive]

This could probably get out of hand quickly, IMO.......remember the Gov't can and has shut down internet communications before. Who would know...?

[mcp1810]

please provide evidence for this fascinating story.

Is this what you are looking for?

moose003.jpg

[Hopyard]

Merely possessing something the State thinks you shouldn't have is not legitimate grounds for being arrested, as that harms no one. I have a huge problem with it, and it disturbs me that you and a lot of other people don't.

I think you missed the salient point MCP made. Those arrested were people in illegal possession, you know, the nice folks who
violated their parole; were felons in possession; that sort of thing. No doubt a few just got picked up on warrants once they were identified.

People weren't being arrested solely because they possessed a particular type of weapon, at least that isn't what I think MCP said happened.

I hope he pops up to clarify what he was describing.

[bmcgilvray]

you're comparing deaths caused by automobile accidents, to deaths caused by the purposeful use of a firearm?

really?

Yeah really!

The people killed are just as dead. They just don't count for as much in a car crash resulting from any form of deliberate or merely thoughtless irresponsibility as they do when the gun is involved. Isn't that convenient?

The comparison is perfectly reasonable.

[mcp1810]

I think you missed the salient point MCP made. Those arrested were people in illegal possession, you know, the nice folks who
violated their parole; were felons in possession; that sort of thing. No doubt a few just got picked up on warrants once they were identified.

People weren't being arrested solely because they possessed a particular type of weapon, at least that isn't what I think MCP said happened.

I hope he pops up to clarify what he was describing.

Some of the people arrested were prohibited persons, others opened their gun cabinets and were found to have items such as hand grenades, sawed off shotguns, or automatic weapons for which they had no stamp. Some were war trophies, some origin unknown.

And of course there were the usual idiots with illegal drugs in plain sight when they invited the officers in.

But my main point is that anyone that says "it will never happen" does not know what they are talking about. I was part of the task force (still have the t-shirt) and they came looking for my rifle even though they knew exactly where I was (in uniform, on duty, thirty witnesses) when Sonny was shot.

[Cbuffett556]

The anti's are going to try to get the most restrictive ban possible passed.

It is up to like-minded gun owners to make their voices heard and limit if not eliminate their ability to infringe on our rights.

The second amendment was created in a time long before 30rd mags and red dots. But, when the 2A was created it was designed to allow people to take home their weapons after the revolutionary war and be allowed to posses them without persecution. It allowed the people to posses the same weapons as the government and stand ready as a militia to protect AND challenge the union if necessary. Fast forward 2+ centuries and you get to today where the government has mini guns, drones, 5k pound bombs and nukes. The people are grossly under armed compared to the government. The only advantage the people (militia) have is sheer numbers. Being allowed to posses the same (similar) handheld weapons as most of the members of the military does nothing but fit the status quo as it was when the 2A was written.

I hope that makes sense to everyone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, please excuse typos.

[PEF]

you're comparing deaths caused by automobile accidents, to deaths caused by the purposeful use of a firearm?

really?

Pythius, Let's step back. Both alcohol and firearms are "implements" that if used responsibly will not cause death.

Drunk driving fatalities in the US are about the same as firearm fatalities - about 10k per year. But more die from alcohol abuse, so alcohol kills many more than firearms per year. And many innocent children are killed each year due to drunk driving.

Yet alcohol is freely available. I only need to be 21. There is no background check when I buy some Stella or MGD. The reason is that alcohol use is widely accepted and alcohol is understood to be an product that, if used, responsibly, should not lead to death. There is no talk of an "alcohol culture." And do you not find it odd that Bloomberg does not crusade against alcohol?

Guns and 2A have become political issues heavily, but not exclusively, drawn along party lines. The societal cost of alcohol abuse likely exceeds the societal cost of gun "abuse" and crimes.

So I respectfully request that if you want to engage in the argument, then you reply with something other than a rhetorical question. And the answer to that question (Yes, I know it rhetorical) is yes, the comparison is there and is valid.

The comparison does not diminish what happened at Sandy Hook. But one must ask why the public places the burden of alcohol abuse on the abuser, but places the the burden of firearms violence on the manufactures and supporters of firearms. It is this kind of unbalanced and emotional approach that causes concern in 2A supporters.