|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 24, 2018 15:09:17 GMT -5
No credibility, RJ. You're in the small minority here, and your unthinking partisan opinion is worthless. You keep saying that all you want. I live in a jurisdiction with lax gun laws, high gun ownership rates, and very little crime. Tell you what though, when you and the rest of the Democrats running high gun-crime cities get the gun violence problem under control, then you can come tell us how you did it (and talk about my credibility problem). In the mean time, I've got close friends at that March for Your Life Rally who told me they planned to be stoned out of their gourds right about now. The irony of being an example of the failure of pot prohibition laws while marching in favor of gun control laws escaped them. Very similar to Democrats from high gun violence jurisdictions talking about credibility issues on this subject to a libertarian from a low gun violence jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Mar 24, 2018 16:17:29 GMT -5
No credibility, RJ. You're in the small minority here, and your unthinking partisan opinion is worthless. Wow, did you really say that?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 24, 2018 16:49:50 GMT -5
No credibility, RJ. You're in the small minority here, and your unthinking partisan opinion is worthless. Wow, did you really say that? What else was he going to say? He certainly wasn't going to use facts and logic to argue a point.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 24, 2018 20:20:05 GMT -5
You're focusing on a TINY number of deaths every year while ignoring gang violence which FAR exceeds the casualty counts of the occasional mass shooter by many orders of magnitude. Gang violence not only can't be stopped with gun control, it is fueled by it. Lets be realistic: you only want gun control as a political issue in support of your own narrow and unthinking political tribe. Actually reducing gun violence means going after criminals. But you would oppose this too as racist. Nice deflection, RJ. Point to the cities -- make gun violence a black problem. No bigotry there, right? While you sit in your 96% white neighborhood. 70% of the people in the country support some form of gun control. We have a problem. You want to strengthen background checks. As usual, you have no solution except to blame others. More on your continued unthinking partisanship and blind following NRA talking points. How does it feel to know that high school seniors have more and better ideas than you do? No, they don't. The fake news claims that "70%", or "90%" want something. However, only the snowflakes, the mentally challenged, and the weak minded want that, since it does absolutely nothing to stop violence. As for "gun" violence being a "black issue", how many blacks are killed with firearms by whites, compared with the number killed with firearms by other blacks? How many white neighborhoods have the same level of violent crime as black neighborhoods? As for the high school seniors, I have yet to hear of a real idea from them. All I hear is more Communist propaganda, spoonfed to them by the Communists, and the NAZI Soros.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 24, 2018 20:25:30 GMT -5
Keep deflecting, RJ. Keep the problem in the city and you don't have to worry about. You can remain in you little white enclave. The fact of the matter is that gun violence is not just a cit problem, it's a US problem It's everywhere, it's pervasive in our society. But you'd rather ignore facts and live in you narrow-minded world in your little white enclave so you can continue to hug your coworkers. You're completely out of touch with mainstream America on this issue. Your opinion is worthless and hereinafter will be dismissed for the unthinking partisan claptrap it is. I suggest you spend some time today watching the various marches. You might be surprised to see how far from the mainstream you really are. You might even learn something . . . though I doubt it. Keep lying and changing the narrative. The problems are in the cities. Most small towns and rural areas have near zero violent crime, largely because nearly everyone there is armed. Until the gangs start spreading out from the cities and bringing the violent crime with them, of course. It's not "everywhere", it's concentrated in Democrat controlled enclaves, where Democrat policies have created generations of uneducated, drug addled poor, who live in constant danger of attack from other uneducated, drug addled poor. Democrats created the problems, intentionally. If the poor got educated, didn't get pregnant in high school, or didn't get addicted to drugs, there would be no Democrat party, since education precludes voting for them. "Mainstream" America, as defined by CNN, MSNBC, or other Communist propaganda outlets? Really? You have no idea what "mainstream America" thinks, since you never listen to anything but propaganda. It's funny how you decide to "dismiss" anyone after you lose an argument with them.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 24, 2018 20:28:23 GMT -5
No credibility, RJ. You're in the small minority here, and your unthinking partisan opinion is worthless. Of course it is. It doesn't conform to the mindless propaganda of the Communist narrative. Since you have no idea what real Americans think, it's pointless for you to continue to insist that only your viewpoint, which is the viewpoint of the Communist Party USA, is the only correct one. If so many Americans are so anxious for more "gun" control, why are "gun" sales setting new records almost every month?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 24, 2018 20:29:54 GMT -5
Wow, did you really say that? What else was he going to say? He certainly wasn't going to use facts and logic to argue a point. He can't. The facts destroy every syllable he types. He's repeating the narrative, and showing more and more how ignorant, and silly he is.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 24, 2018 20:32:55 GMT -5
No credibility, RJ. You're in the small minority here, and your unthinking partisan opinion is worthless. Of course it is. It doesn't conform to the mindless propaganda of the Communist narrative. Since you have no idea what real Americans think, it's pointless for you to continue to insist that only your viewpoint, which is the viewpoint of the Communist Party USA, is the only correct one. If so many Americans are so anxious for more "gun" control, why are "gun" sales setting new records almost every month? Lol. Because every time the Democrats start beating the gun contol drum, people figure they had better go buy more guns before the legal market is destroyed. No one has done more to put more guns in the market than the Democrats and gun controllers. They couldn’t have done more to encourage the gun market if they had set out to do so intentionally.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 25, 2018 20:16:32 GMT -5
Of course it is. It doesn't conform to the mindless propaganda of the Communist narrative. Since you have no idea what real Americans think, it's pointless for you to continue to insist that only your viewpoint, which is the viewpoint of the Communist Party USA, is the only correct one. If so many Americans are so anxious for more "gun" control, why are "gun" sales setting new records almost every month? Lol. Because every time the Democrats start beating the gun contol drum, people figure they had better go buy more guns before the legal market is destroyed. No one has done more to put more guns in the market than the Democrats and gun controllers. They couldn’t have done more to encourage the gun market if they had set out to do so intentionally. Isn't it strange that they insist that the very organizations that set up, then allowed, the FL schools shootings be the only ones responsible for their "safety"? The victim disarmament cults are ignoring the fact that the BCO, local police, FBI, and the school knew that Cruz was a time bomb, for years, and ignored it. They made sure that he could buy firearms, and that he was never picked up for the terrorist threats, domestic violence, or assault with a deadly weapon, any of which would have prevented him from buying one. Yet these are the entities that the pro death squads insist will "protect" us, and them.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 25, 2018 20:48:01 GMT -5
No credibility, RJ. You're in the small minority here, and your unthinking partisan opinion is worthless. Wow, did you really say that? Yes, I did. If you've been reading this thread, and there have been a couple of others on the same general topic, then you know that we've discussed ways to stop school shootings in particular and gun violence in general. RJ has pretty much dismissed every idea presented as unpractical except strengthening background checks. He's content with the level of gun violence that exists in our society today. Recent polling shows that 70% of the country, including about 55% of Republicans, favor stronger gun control laws. The marches yesterday show that our youth are getting more and more involved in the issue. Whether or not they will have any success remains to be seen. But the point is that 70% of the country supports stronger gun control measures. Strengthening background checks is one part of that. Limiting magazine size is another method that many people support, others support stopping sales of AR15s and like weapons. There are other points to consider, but RJ discounts them all as unworkable. That's why I said he's in the minority.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 25, 2018 21:25:53 GMT -5
Wow, did you really say that? Yes, I did. If you've been reading this thread, and there have been a couple of others on the same general topic, then you know that we've discussed ways to stop school shootings in particular and gun violence in general. RJ has pretty much dismissed every idea presented as unpractical except strengthening background checks. He's content with the level of gun violence that exists in our society today. Recent polling shows that 70% of the country, including about 55% of Republicans, favor stronger gun control laws. The marches yesterday show that our youth are getting more and more involved in the issue. Whether or not they will have any success remains to be seen. But the point is that 70% of the country supports stronger gun control measures. Strengthening background checks is one part of that. Limiting magazine size is another method that many people support, others support stopping sales of AR15s and like weapons. There are other points to consider, but RJ discounts them all as unworkable. That's why I said he's in the minority. Just because the Leftist, fake news media claims that "70%" of the country support something doesn't mean they do. Nor does it mean that what they support will work. We already tried the fake "assault weapon" ban. It did absolutely nothing. Now will limiting magazine size, since reloading is fast, and multiple magazines are easy to carry. Not to mention the billions of 30 and 40 round magazines already in private hands. There are no serial numbers on magazines, so there is no way for law enforcement to know if they are new or have been owned for years. Unless you advocate the police going from house to house, illegally searching each and every residence in the country. A lot of people will get shot if you think that will work.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 26, 2018 7:30:46 GMT -5
Lol. Because every time the Democrats start beating the gun contol drum, people figure they had better go buy more guns before the legal market is destroyed. No one has done more to put more guns in the market than the Democrats and gun controllers. They couldn’t have done more to encourage the gun market if they had set out to do so intentionally. Isn't it strange that they insist that the very organizations that set up, then allowed, the FL schools shootings be the only ones responsible for their "safety"? The victim disarmament cults are ignoring the fact that the BCO, local police, FBI, and the school knew that Cruz was a time bomb, for years, and ignored it. They made sure that he could buy firearms, and that he was never picked up for the terrorist threats, domestic violence, or assault with a deadly weapon, any of which would have prevented him from buying one. Yet these are the entities that the pro death squads insist will "protect" us, and them. This issue appears to be like so many others for the Democrats: it's there to run for office on. There is no intention or desire to address the problem. If they did that, they'd lose the issue. This is why they offer, for all intents and purposes, no solutions at all. We see the same with inner-city crime. When they "solved" health insurance, they made the problems much, much worse so they'd have more to run on. There was no intention of doing anything in the Middle East or with North Korea for Obama's entire term. Other than make sure Iran would continue to be an issue for Democrats to run on for generations. The problem they're facing at home though, is their proposed solutions are fasicst (at least the way they mis-use the term) and mostly involve the destruction of civil rights. Their greatest enemies are the First and Second Amendments.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 26, 2018 8:19:42 GMT -5
Wow, did you really say that? Yes, I did. If you've been reading this thread, and there have been a couple of others on the same general topic, then you know that we've discussed ways to stop school shootings in particular and gun violence in general. RJ has pretty much dismissed every idea presented as unpractical except strengthening background checks. He's content with the level of gun violence that exists in our society today. Recent polling shows that 70% of the country, including about 55% of Republicans, favor stronger gun control laws. The marches yesterday show that our youth are getting more and more involved in the issue. Whether or not they will have any success remains to be seen. But the point is that 70% of the country supports stronger gun control measures. Strengthening background checks is one part of that. Limiting magazine size is another method that many people support, others support stopping sales of AR15s and like weapons. There are other points to consider, but RJ discounts them all as unworkable. That's why I said he's in the minority. I'm in the minority because the minority actually understands this movement. Most people don't. March for Your Lives wants to ban "assault weapons" but no one associated with it knows WTF an "assault weapon" is. Why? Because the movement is about banning ALL guns. It is an anti-freedon, anti-civil rights movement. It's a bunch of fascists fooling a lot of useful idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 26, 2018 8:47:55 GMT -5
Crime Prevention Resource CenterSince 1950, only 6 public mass-shootings took place outside a “gun free zone.” With this in mind, and in addition to tightening reporting on to the NICS, we also need to ban gun free zones.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 26, 2018 18:35:30 GMT -5
Completely wrong as usual, RJ. Just more of your (expected) unthinking partisanship.
You continue to champion strengthening NICS. Agreed. And make is apply to ALL gun sales, since about 30% of current sales are not subject to such checks.
But you continue to deny any other possibilities.
And the kids aren't about confiscating weapons. Why not listen to or read what they actually said instead of the NRA talking points and defamation.
Wasn't there a ban on assault weapons in the 90s? A ban that ultimately expired? Why not use that definition. The definition worked once, it could work again. It said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
But you'll probably find something wrong or unworkable with it. And I'm sure you'll find some way to bash Democrats in the process. But what else is new?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 27, 2018 7:10:59 GMT -5
Completely wrong as usual, RJ. Just more of your (expected) unthinking partisanship. You continue to champion strengthening NICS. Agreed. And make is apply to ALL gun sales, since about 30% of current sales are not subject to such checks. The reason 30% of current sales are not subject to background checks is because this number includes black market sales that will NEVER involve a background check. Only a TINY number of legal sales are exempt. Mostly such transfers take place between family members. They say they want an assault weapons ban. Which is something we tried, and is a proven failure. However, what they really want is confiscation. To assert otherwise is to ignore reality. But that's just it... It DIDN'T work. The "assault weapons ban" had no effect on gun violence. Honestly, PAM, the vast majority of gun violence is carried out with hand guns. Even if you managed to completely eliminate every semi-automatic rifle in the US, the impact on gun violence would be negligible because a negligible number of crimes are committed with these weapons. The definition of "assault rifle" focused mostly on cosmetic features, and has nothing to do with the basic functionality of the weapon. It was an imbecilic idea proposed by people who know nothing about these weapons. If you want to try again, the absolute LEAST you could do is change the definition to something meaningful. More info here: www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.htmlYeah... When the Democrats keep proposing STUPID ideas that have ALREADY FAILED ONCE, they reveal themselves to be idiots.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 27, 2018 8:14:42 GMT -5
Completely wrong as usual, RJ. Just more of your (expected) unthinking partisanship. You continue to champion strengthening NICS. Agreed. And make is apply to ALL gun sales, since about 30% of current sales are not subject to such checks. But you continue to deny any other possibilities. And the kids aren't about confiscating weapons. Why not listen to or read what they actually said instead of the NRA talking points and defamation. Wasn't there a ban on assault weapons in the 90s? A ban that ultimately expired? Why not use that definition. The definition worked once, it could work again. It said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." But you'll probably find something wrong or unworkable with it. And I'm sure you'll find some way to bash Democrats in the process. But what else is new? "The kids" have no idea what they are about. It's the Communist adults, using these kids as useful idiots, that are about banning all firearms. They only want themselves, in positions of power, to have firearms. Notices that every one of the lying, anti American supporters of this criminal activity, have armed guards 24/7. They "deserve" to be protected, because they are "important". The rest of us are expendable, just like the kids in that high school. They set up the shooting, just like they have so many others, by ignoring all the warning signs, and their own protocols. They want more school shootings, because they can get the weak minded to respond just like the ones at that march did.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 27, 2018 8:18:17 GMT -5
Completely wrong as usual, RJ. Just more of your (expected) unthinking partisanship. You continue to champion strengthening NICS. Agreed. And make is apply to ALL gun sales, since about 30% of current sales are not subject to such checks. But you continue to deny any other possibilities. And the kids aren't about confiscating weapons. Why not listen to or read what they actually said instead of the NRA talking points and defamation. Wasn't there a ban on assault weapons in the 90s? A ban that ultimately expired? Why not use that definition. The definition worked once, it could work again. It said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." But you'll probably find something wrong or unworkable with it. And I'm sure you'll find some way to bash Democrats in the process. But what else is new? First, the "assault weapon" ban did absolutely nothing to stop crime. It had no effect one way or the other. Second, your definition is a back door repeal of the 2A, since nearly every commonly owned firearm fits that definition. Other than bolt actions, lever actions, or single shots, and those are pretty much a minority of firearms owned nowdays. Not to mention that your criminal masters would simply expand the definition to include all other firearms. The law never mattered to your masters, unless they could use it to further enslave the populace. And your fake news LR media would simply parrot whatever they are told.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 27, 2018 9:52:30 GMT -5
RJ, please stop using the NRA talking points and do some actual research on you own. I know it might be hard, but it's worth it.
You claim that the assault weapon ban was ineffective. That's not quite accurate. Note that both sides use the same report to make their contradicting claims. The reality is that tIt he ban grandfathered in a lot of weapons. It was thought that shootings with assault weapons were decreasing slightly, while incidents with other weapons with large magazines were increasing somewhat.
In effect, the research said that results were inconclusive. It appeared that there may have been some small effect from the ban, but very small and probably only measurable is the ban continued. Since it did not, the results remain inconclusive.
Again, please do some research. The 30% figure for gun sales without a background check also includes gun show sales by people who are not dealers but only occasional sellers. Requiring background checks for all sales would prevent some persons who should not be buying guns from buying them in this manner.
Note that, when the State of Missouri repealed all requirement for background checks in 2007, the state's murder rate went up 14% and the homicide rate by firearm increased 25%. – A 2009 investigation of gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee found that 63 percent of private sellers were willing to sell guns to someone who indicated that they would be unlikely to pass a background check.
I'm glad you'd like to strengthen the background check process. Not only strengthen the database, increase those checks to all sales. Period. Maybe (as I think off the top of my head as I'm typing and haven't thought this through -- feel free to be critical) requiring registration of the gun itself should also be a requirement. We register both cars and drivers. Maybe we should register guns and shooters/owners.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 27, 2018 10:57:58 GMT -5
RJ, please stop using the NRA talking points and do some actual research on you own. I know it might be hard, but it's worth it. You can't be honest about this to save your soul, can you? The LA Times is not, and never has been, the NRA. And yet you still lie even when I link you directly to my source. No. I claim the AWB can't be effective because so few crimes are committed with them. Eliminating all assault weapon gun crime will have a negligible impact on overall gun crime because there is so little of it to start with. Even if this were true (and the reason it isn't is obvious: there were 5 mass shootings with assault rifles before the ban, and 3 during the ban. Numbers far too small to do anything with), infringing on people's civil rights over an inconclusive study is fascistic. That simply doesn't happen. Not surprising given how often private sellers are gang members working in a black market who wouldn't do background checks even if they were legally mandated to. Laws don't affect these people. I'd like to require everyone to get a background check. But I'm also enough in touch with reality that I know mandating such a thing won't cause it to happen. Registration is the first step towards confiscation. I can't support that. And it also won't happen even if its mandated.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 27, 2018 12:29:13 GMT -5
Your LA Times article is an op-ed opinion piece, RJ. I suggested that the actual research was inconclusive. Here's an article: www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/. I realize that you don't like fact checking sites (as well as you don't like facts), but this does present both sides of the argument based on actual research. Please learn to read and comprehend. And the gun sales-background check number is accurate. Feel free to dispute it, but please use facts instead of you opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 27, 2018 12:43:01 GMT -5
Your LA Times article is an op-ed opinion piece, RJ. I suggested that the actual research was inconclusive. Here's an article: www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/. I realize that you don't like fact checking sites (as well as you don't like facts), but this does present both sides of the argument based on actual research. Please learn to read and comprehend. And the gun sales-background check number is accurate. Feel free to dispute it, but please use facts instead of you opinion. I don't like fact check sites because like the LA Times op-ed, they are also OPINION sites. They just claim to be fact-based to fool the unintelligent. Still, we're back to the FACT that it is fascistic to cite an inconclusive study to take away civil rights. Which is exactly what you, the Democrats and the March for your Life crowd are trying to do. The gun show loophole is a fantasy. All licensed gun sellers (FFL holders) are required to run background checks for every sale. Only private sellers are exempt from this, and they do not sell at gun shows. If you have a booth at a gun show, you are "engaged in the business" and need an FFL. If you're in the alley behind the gun show, you're in the black market and beyond the reach of any laws.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 27, 2018 13:22:00 GMT -5
Your LA Times article is an op-ed opinion piece, RJ. I suggested that the actual research was inconclusive. Here's an article: www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/. I realize that you don't like fact checking sites (as well as you don't like facts), but this does present both sides of the argument based on actual research. Please learn to read and comprehend. And the gun sales-background check number is accurate. Feel free to dispute it, but please use facts instead of you opinion. I don't like fact check sites because like the LA Times op-ed, they are also OPINION sites. They just claim to be fact-based to fool the unintelligent. Still, we're back to the FACT that it is fascistic to cite an inconclusive study to take away civil rights. Which is exactly what you, the Democrats and the March for your Life crowd are trying to do. The gun show loophole is a fantasy. All licensed gun sellers (FFL holders) are required to run background checks for every sale. Only private sellers are exempt from this, and they do not sell at gun shows. If you have a booth at a gun show, you are "engaged in the business" and need an FFL. If you're in the alley behind the gun show, you're in the black market and beyond the reach of any laws. Not always... like the two side-by-side pictures... one supposed to be of Bob Mueller in Vietnam... and the other of Donald Trump receiving a golf trophy... Fact Check accurately points out that, while Mueller is a decorated Vietnam veteran, the picture that is supposed to be Mueller is not Mueller...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 27, 2018 13:32:10 GMT -5
This is your leader, PAM. A not very-well adjusted profanity spewing child who likes a good Hitler salute with a clenched fist.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 28, 2018 8:24:22 GMT -5
RJ, please stop using the NRA talking points and do some actual research on you own. I know it might be hard, but it's worth it. You claim that the assault weapon ban was ineffective. That's not quite accurate. Note that both sides use the same report to make their contradicting claims. The reality is that tIt he ban grandfathered in a lot of weapons. It was thought that shootings with assault weapons were decreasing slightly, while incidents with other weapons with large magazines were increasing somewhat. In effect, the research said that results were inconclusive. It appeared that there may have been some small effect from the ban, but very small and probably only measurable is the ban continued. Since it did not, the results remain inconclusive. Again, please do some research. The 30% figure for gun sales without a background check also includes gun show sales by people who are not dealers but only occasional sellers. Requiring background checks for all sales would prevent some persons who should not be buying guns from buying them in this manner. Note that, when the State of Missouri repealed all requirement for background checks in 2007, the state's murder rate went up 14% and the homicide rate by firearm increased 25%. – A 2009 investigation of gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee found that 63 percent of private sellers were willing to sell guns to someone who indicated that they would be unlikely to pass a background check. I'm glad you'd like to strengthen the background check process. Not only strengthen the database, increase those checks to all sales. Period. Maybe (as I think off the top of my head as I'm typing and haven't thought this through -- feel free to be critical) requiring registration of the gun itself should also be a requirement. We register both cars and drivers. Maybe we should register guns and shooters/owners. So, how about background checks for all voters? After all, voting is also a right, and illegal voting a felony. And yes, it can cause far more deaths than firearms. Look at what happened in 08 and 12. The Puppet was responsible for far more deaths than mass shooters are. As for that, how about background checks before writers are allowed to publish, tech companies are allowed to restrict content, or people are allowed to buy a newspaper or book? Remember that Stalin, Hitler, and Castro all used the press to further their agendas. Or is it just firearms that you want "controlled"?
|
|