Logic and clear thinking on gun control-something liberals hate

[Xtracho]

This video has gone viral. It should be sent to numbskulls like Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein, and the rest of the anti-gun nutcases out there.

GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)

[Blakjack]

Right on!

[Rams]

It could make all the sense in the world and they aren't going to listen or consider it. 

I don't know if they drank  too much of the Kool Aide or what but, the Libs have made up their minds that guns are the culprits and not the criminals using them.    It's like talking to a two year old, they only know what they want, not what's right or best.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

The citizens who are influenced by these freedom haters will sometimes listen and we have to always try to get them to listen. We have to do our best to educate them.

But, the people behind it won't listen because it's not about crime, it's not about safety, it's not about lunatics with guns. Those are all just their vehicles for propaganda. It's about influential people whose agenda is to disarm the American public and seemingly all of the worlds citizens.

If and when they're successful we'll find out what their true objective is. My hope is that they are never successful and we never find out what it's really all about.

Personally, I'll be amazed if somehow through mere coincidence I'm sure we don't have some new lunatic making an even bigger splash in the news at a crucial time for votes in the Senate. There is so much money behind these people anything seems possible. Let's pray that the next time around it's stopped by an armed citizen before any innocents are hurt.

[hotglue #43]

Let's pray that the next time around it's stopped by an armed citizen before any innocents are hurt.

That would be the best case..... but you would never see it on the news.....

[BF]

So......in invoking the name of Sandy Hook, liberals want to make ALL Americans just like the victims of Sandy Hook, gunless, defenseless, vernerable and terrified. 

Makes sense to me.      

[Oss]

I am forwarding this to all the liberals that I know

and I think I will put it up on my website under resources as well

[Jess from VA]

There is no talking to the hard left.  They do not want (cannot stand) the people to have that much freedom (it is of course the ultimate or first freedom).  There is, however, always the possibility of swaying a moderate, or any thinking man.  

The lie of the moment is that the the majority want more control.  That is a lie.  And the 2d Amendment is not up for majority rule anyway, unless someone wants to repeal or amend the 2d Amendment.   The left is not pushing for this, because they know the truth, even though they are seemingly unable to ever speak the truth.

The great irony is they are after ARs, AKs, semiautos, large mags (to begin with), but if they ever do push thru a big confiscation bill, they will shortly discover that they should have gone after old school 3-5 shot bolt rifles with good optics.

[Daddie O]

There should be no gun control at all.  The 2nd amendment of our constitution says I have the right to bear arms, so that means I should have Assault Rifles with large capacity magazines, RPG's, Napalm, and Nuclear weapons as well.    Damn Libruhls tryin to take muh grenades!  Don't they know its muh right!  If someone tries to break into my home I'll napalm them in self defense.

[Xtracho]

I agree folks. Those in power cast a blind eye towards the real problem in favor of attacking law abiding citizens in the name of "having addressed the problem."

For me, the best parts of that video were the analogy of the jaguar and gazelle; and the statement about making criminals out of law abiding citizens with the "stroke of a pen."

Viewing this video for the first time...it seemed to me to be the most concise, accurate, and logical argument in favor of our 2A that I have ever seen.

This video has been forwarded to everyone on my contacts list and to my Senators/Congressman.

[musclehead]

There should be no gun control at all.  The 2nd amendment of our constitution says I have the right to bear arms, so that means I should have Assault Rifles with large capacity magazines, RPG's, Napalm, and Nuclear weapons as well.    Damn Libruhls tryin to take muh grenades!  Don't they know its muh right!  If someone tries to break into my home I'll napalm them in self defense.

I'm sensing some sarcasm.  actually I saw an RPG for sale. I didn't ask but I'm pretty sure it was deweaponized and perfectly legal to own.

it seems the arguement put forward is you can't hunt with it so you shouldn't own it. 

if the governemt has it in its arsenal the second allows me to own it too. it's a radical assumption but that was the thought process of the day.

[Serk]

There should be no gun control at all.  The 2nd amendment of our constitution says I have the right to bear arms, so that means I should have Assault Rifles with large capacity magazines, RPG's, Napalm, and Nuclear weapons as well.    Damn Libruhls tryin to take muh grenades!  Don't they know its muh right!  If someone tries to break into my home I'll napalm them in self defense.

Finally a Californian with some common sense, and here I thought they'd ran them all out!

(Yes, I know you were being sarcastic... I'm not...)

I will accept restrictions on civilians owning extreme weapons, such as nuclear, chemical and biological, but beyond that, yes, citizens should be able to own any weapon that their government can own.

[Master Blaster]

Heres another lie MSN put out this morning.

Poll: Most Americans back stricter gun laws

A new poll reveals strong majorities of Americans favor stricter gun laws, including an assault-weapons ban & universal background checks for private gun sales.

Its totally bogus, but by them putting it out there the koolaid drinkers and many others will believe.   Of course you can make up anything and through polling make it seem true.

[Serk]

Heres another lie MSN put out this morning.

Poll: Most Americans back stricter gun laws

A new poll reveals strong majorities of Americans favor stricter gun laws, including an assault-weapons ban & universal background checks for private gun sales.

Its totally bogus, but by them putting it out there the koolaid drinkers and many others will believe.   Of course you can make up anything and through polling make it seem true.

Beyond that, it's totally irrelevant... A right doesn't go away because a majority of Americans want it to. The only way to do that would be to amend the constitution. (And even then, the right wouldn't go away, it would just be infringed.)

[Daddie O]

I'm a proud, gun owning California liberal.  Most of my liberal friends own guns as well.  Grenades, nuclear and biological weapons, automatic weapons did not exist when then 2nd amendment was written.  You may decide for yourself that nuclear weapons should be off limits for civilians, someone else may draw the line at grenades, and someone else may draw the lines at fully automatic weapons, someone may draw the line at large capacity magazines, someone else may draw the line at semi-automatic.  Someone could suggest we only have muzzle loading black powder guns.  What if we came out with affordable sonic weaponry or laser beams, should everyone have access?  The gun control debate is about where to draw the line, not about trying to disarm our citizens completely.  Also, in the debate about assault rifles no law to my knowledge has ever been suggested by anyone that would remove the weapons already in existence from their current legal owners.  The powerful gun lobby (only looking out for their financial interest like the insurance and pharmaceutical and oil lobbies) puts out misinformation to scare ill-informed people.  "The guvment is tryin to take muh guns!"  There was already an assault weapons ban in place that was sponsored by Sen. Feinstein.  Did any government officials go door to door rounding up assault weapons and taking them from their legal owners?  No?  I didn't think so.

[Serk]

Blogs, desktop publishing and print on demand books, e-mail did not exist when then 1st amendment was written.  You may decide for yourself that email should be off limits for civilians, someone else may draw the line at blogs, and someone else may draw the lines at web forums, someone may draw the line at instant messenger, and someone else may draw the line at desktop publishing.  Someone could suggest we only have manually operated printing presses.  What if we came out with self published newspapers, should everyone have access?  The free speech debate is about where to draw the line, not about trying to silence our citizens completely.  Also, in the debate about the internet no law to my knowledge has ever been suggested by anyone that would remove the blogs already in existence from their current legal owners.

There. Fixed that for you.

[Daddie O]

Blogs, desktop publishing and print on demand books, e-mail did not exist when then 1st amendment was written.  You may decide for yourself that email should be off limits for civilians, someone else may draw the line at blogs, and someone else may draw the lines at web forums, someone may draw the line at instant messenger, and someone else may draw the line at desktop publishing.  Someone could suggest we only have manually operated printing presses.  What if we came out with self published newspapers, should everyone have access?  The free speech debate is about where to draw the line, not about trying to silence our citizens completely.  Also, in the debate about the internet no law to my knowledge has ever been suggested by anyone that would remove the blogs already in existence from their current legal owners.

There. Fixed that for you.

That is demagoguery at its best.  Free speech is another matter.  If you want to use it as an example, you have the right to free speech, but not the right to libel.  You have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.  This further illustrated my point, that just because you have a right it doesn't mean there aren't limits to it. But, But, the guvment says I can't shout fire in a crowded place?  They are taking away my right to free speech!  They don't want me to talk at all!  Next thing they are gunna come and cut out my tongue!

[Master Blaster]

Grenades, nuclear and biological weapons, automatic weapons did not exist when then 2nd amendment was written.  You may decide for yourself that nuclear weapons should be off limits for civilians, someone else may draw the line at grenades, and someone else may draw the lines at fully automatic weapons, someone may draw the line at large capacity magazines, and someone else may draw the line at semi-automatic.  Someone could suggest we only have muzzle loading black powder guns.  What if we came out with affordable sonic weaponry or laser beams, should everyone have access?  The gun control debate is about where to draw the line, not about trying to disarm our citizens completely.  Also, in the debate about assault rifles no law to my knowledge has ever been suggested by anyone that would remove the weapons already in existence from their current legal owners.

Just because the weapons we have today didnt exist back then means nothing.  The weapons that did exist were state of the art, and the 2nd was to insure the people could resist the Gmt becoming a dictatorship.  Same reason exists today, only difference is the danger today is greater.   Very decent of you to say I can decide for myself, I really needed that permission.

[Daddie O]

Grenades, nuclear and biological weapons, automatic weapons did not exist when then 2nd amendment was written.  You may decide for yourself that nuclear weapons should be off limits for civilians, someone else may draw the line at grenades, and someone else may draw the lines at fully automatic weapons, someone may draw the line at large capacity magazines, and someone else may draw the line at semi-automatic.  Someone could suggest we only have muzzle loading black powder guns.  What if we came out with affordable sonic weaponry or laser beams, should everyone have access?  The gun control debate is about where to draw the line, not about trying to disarm our citizens completely.  Also, in the debate about assault rifles no law to my knowledge has ever been suggested by anyone that would remove the weapons already in existence from their current legal owners.

Just because the weapons we have today didnt exist back then means nothing.  The weapons that did exist were state of the art, and the 2nd was to insure the people could resist the Gmt becoming a dictatorship.  Same reason exists today, only difference is the danger today is greater.   Very decent of you to say I can decide for myself, I really needed that permission.

Seems reading comprehension is lacking in this one.  Just because you "try" to decide for yourself what weapons you may own, doesn't mean you have the right.  I'm not granting you permission..lol.  Your logic is flawed.  The weapons we have today compared to what we had then means everything in the debate!  Do you truly believe you have the "right" to nuclear weapons because they are state of the art?  Go join Kim Jong Un!  When automobiles first came out they couldn't go fast (though they were state of the art at the time), and now they can exceed 100mph, so we have speed limits for both gas economy and public safety.  You see, it is the liberal here with logic and clear thinking, and it would appear as if the conservatives are struggling with it.

[Serk]

You're confusing an action vs. a tool...

Saying guns should be illegal because someone might do something bad with them is the same as saying blogs should be banned because someone might commit libel with one.

The act of doing something bad, with a tool or without, is what should be stopped, not the tool involved.

And the only reason I say nuclear, chemical and biological weapons shouldn't be in the hands of civilians is because of the fact that it's been generally decreed that most nations aren't allowed to have those weapons either. In general, if a nation state can have a weapon, then the people should be allowed the same weapon to defend themselves with.

[Jess from VA]

Yeah, I lived in CA when they first required registration on ARs, and a bit later when they confiscated them (I didn't do either).  Don't tell me the hard left doesn't want to take my guns, a few at a time.

Wherever the line is in the 2dA, it unqustionably includes all semiauto rifles with standard capacity mags.     

[Daddie O]

Yeah, I lived in CA when they first required registration on ARs, and a bit later when they confiscated them (I didn't do either).  Don't tell me the hard left doesn't want to take my guns, a few at a time.    

California required registration of your AR.  If you chose to not register it, then you made the gun illegal.  You are not allowed to own an illegal weapon.  A registered AR is not an illegal weapon, and no govt official tried to take away your legally registered AR.  

Also, I am not confusing an action with a tool.  An automobile is a tool, you use it to drive, but there are still regulations regarding it's use and what you can operate on the street.  No one is trying to take away your automobile because you might kill someone with it.  Your voice is a tool, you use it to communicate, there are regulations regarding its use, no one is trying to take away your voice box because you might use it to libel or cause a stampede.  Your gun is a tool, you use it for target practice, hunting, or home defense, but there are regulations regarding it use and what you can own.  No one is trying to take away your gun because you might defend your home with it.  The goverment is trying to regulate what can be legally purchased because an assault weapon can kill many people, just like shouting "FIRE" can, and just like speeding in your car while drunk driving can.

[Willow]

Also, I am not confusing an action with a tool.  An automobile is a tool, you use it to drive, but there are still regulations regarding it's use and what you can operate on the street.  No one is trying to take away your automobile because you might kill someone with it.  

I really do think you are.

A speed limit is analogous to laws that dictate you can't use your gun to rob, threaten or injure another.

A law against ownership of certain types of guns ("assault weapons ban") is more closely paralleled by a law against owning a vehicle capable of traveling more than 75 miles per hour.

[musclehead]

Yeah, I lived in CA when they first required registration on ARs, and a bit later when they confiscated them (I didn't do either).  Don't tell me the hard left doesn't want to take my guns, a few at a time.    

California required registration of your AR.  If you chose to not register it, then you made the gun illegal.  You are not allowed to own an illegal weapon.  A registered AR is not an illegal weapon, and no govt official tried to take away your legally registered AR.  

Also, I am not confusing an action with a tool.  An automobile is a tool, you use it to drive, but there are still regulations regarding it's use and what you can operate on the street.  No one is trying to take away your automobile because you might kill someone with it.  Your voice is a tool, you use it to communicate, there are regulations regarding its use, no one is trying to take away your voice box because you might use it to libel or cause a stampede.  Your gun is a tool, you use it for target practice, hunting, or home defense, but there are regulations regarding it use and what you can own.  No one is trying to take away your gun because you might defend your home with it.  The goverment is trying to regulate what can be legally purchased because an assault weapon can kill many people, just like shouting "FIRE" can, and just like speeding in your car while drunk driving can.

yes but you have a right to keep and bear arms, you have no right to drive. clear? oh and by the way you can yell fire in a movie theater as long as you properly warn the other movie patrons

no I don't want my neighbors owning chemical weapons, nukes or other things that go BOOM!, they have a hard enough time controling thier pit bull.

[musclehead]

I'm a proud, gun owning California liberal.  Most of my liberal friends own guns as well.  Grenades, nuclear and biological weapons, automatic weapons did not exist when then 2nd amendment was written.  You may decide for yourself that nuclear weapons should be off limits for civilians, someone else may draw the line at grenades, and someone else may draw the lines at fully automatic weapons, someone may draw the line at large capacity magazines, someone else may draw the line at semi-automatic.  Someone could suggest we only have muzzle loading black powder guns.  What if we came out with affordable sonic weaponry or laser beams, should everyone have access?  The gun control debate is about where to draw the line, not about trying to disarm our citizens completely.  Also, in the debate about assault rifles no law to my knowledge has ever been suggested by anyone that would remove the weapons already in existence from their current legal owners.  The powerful gun lobby (only looking out for their financial interest like the insurance and pharmaceutical and oil lobbies) puts out misinformation to scare ill-informed people.  "The guvment is tryin to take muh guns!"  There was already an assault weapons ban in place that was sponsored by Sen. Feinstein.  Did any government officials go door to door rounding up assault weapons and taking them from their legal owners?  No?  I didn't think so.

oh and BTW I lurk a liberal forum, quite a few libs say they support the second fully. however that doesn't mean I fully believe or trust that they aren't blowing smoke. time will tell, I'm always watching.
it seems the biggest problem is lack of trust, I trust that your firearms are suitably controlled and locked up, for alot of the libs on that forum a gun owner = gun nut ready to snap.

[Daddie O]

Also, I am not confusing an action with a tool.  An automobile is a tool, you use it to drive, but there are still regulations regarding it's use and what you can operate on the street.  No one is trying to take away your automobile because you might kill someone with it.  

I really do think you are.

A speed limit is analogous to laws that dictate you can't use your gun to rob, threaten or injure another.

A law against ownership of certain types of guns ("assault weapons ban") is more closely paralleled by a law against owning a vehicle capable of traveling more than 75 miles per hour.

A law against operating an Indy Car on the street is analagous to a law against operating an assault weapon on the street.  Indy Car is for use on a race track, an assault weapon is for use on the battlefield.  Either not used in their proper place will likely result in an unnecessary loss of life.  Oh, but our streets could be the battlefield you say?  Our streets could be a racetrack too.

[PAVALKER]

Also, I am not confusing an action with a tool.  An automobile is a tool, you use it to drive, but there are still regulations regarding it's use and what you can operate on the street.  No one is trying to take away your automobile because you might kill someone with it.  

I really do think you are.

A speed limit is analogous to laws that dictate you can't use your gun to rob, threaten or injure another.

A law against ownership of certain types of guns ("assault weapons ban") is more closely paralleled by a law against owning a vehicle capable of traveling more than 75 miles per hour.

I agree with ya Willow.  But I didn't bother reading much more after his opening line "I'm a proud, gun owning California liberal."    That ran a chill to my bone like Obama stating in 2008 "I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away, I will not take your rifle away, I won't take your handgun away... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."  

And here we are.....  I'm just a little curious what he might be soo proud about.    


Daddie O....  what might your definition of assault weapon be?  Mine are for hunting, self defense and having fun.

[.]

And the only reason I say nuclear, chemical and biological weapons shouldn't be in the hands of civilians is because of the fact that it's been generally decreed that most nations aren't allowed to have those weapons either. In general, if a nation state can have a weapon, then the people should be allowed the same weapon to defend themselves with.

Actually, I can think of another very good reason why nuclear, chemical and biological weapons shouldn't be in the hands of civilians: Pretty much every toy anyone's military gets in its toybox gets played with sooner or later, and not always in the most responsible manner. The fact that nutcases with high capacity weapons that can be emptied in seconds do that on a rather frequent basis pretty much says a nutcase with a nuke will probably not be more responsible than a military organization, but will probably set it off sooner or later.

Just for giggles and grins, here's a link to an interesting article published in Mother Jones. Yes, it's probably as liberal as Fox is conservative. All of which means to me that not only have we completely lost the true meaning of liberal and conservative but that placing all of your trust in Fox News is about as smart as placing all of your trust in Mother Jones. If you never allow yourself to look at all sides of the debate then you are doomed to believe there is no real debate because the only opinions that matter are the ones that you agree with. However, there is always a debate when there is more than one opinion, and it is entirely possible that a wise person will have as much regard for differing opinions as they want others to have for their own. 
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings

[Xtracho]

Not once in this debate have I seen the anti-gun poster mention in coherent terms how any gun laws will prevent, lower the incidence of, or stop crime. In fact, in his own state the Brady Campaign lists California as having the toughest gun control laws in the nation. While at the same time, the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report lists California as having had the most firearms murders in the country. So where's the correlation that restricting the ownership of weapons by the law abiding citizen results in a reduction in crime? No....all you want to do is write about "drawing the line" in the sand in front of the law abiding people of this country.

Fact is, these people dance in the blood of 20 dead children at Sandy Hook because it gets their self-aggrandizing, sensationalist agenda on the network news. These childrens' blood wasn't dried on the floors of that school before they were all over the news wailing about "assault weapons." Never mind that Adam Lanza exacted his carnage with two hand guns; committing 3 felonies to obtain the weapons before he ever even reached the school. Never mind that Gabby Giffords was shot in the head with a handgun legally obtained from a licensed FFL. If the government had incorporated the mental illness database into the current background check system, chances are this guy would have been flagged and denied the purchase. Oh, and let's not forget that the NRA has lobbied the government to include that database into the checks system since the 1960's.

Instead of rationale, they choose to grandstand with outrageous "what ifs?" They choose to use veiled insults towards the gun owning public such as "Damn Libruhls tryin to take muh grenades!" and "Don't they know its muh right!" It's the typical stance taken by those who cannot offer a valid argument or solution to the problem of crime in this country.

For decades the liberal left has bastardized the language. They use the words "pro-choice" to refer to pro-abortionists. "Gay" is used to refer to homosexuals. And for the last several years they have trotted out the term "assault weapon" to refer to semi-automatic rifles. A term meant to do nothing more than instill fear. And we all know that a fearful populace is an easier controlled populace.

Just like the video says: These people are bent on cutting off the horns of the gazelle and sitting back, twiddling their thumbs, and hoping the predators just go away.

[Jess from VA]

My AR was never illegal, the State of CA passed unconstitutional laws which I was not obliged to follow.

Perhaps I misspoke on confiscation, if you registered it, and were willing to modify it to a permanent 10-shooter, and not have any number of ordinary features on it, they would let you keep it.  That is the same as confiscation in my book.

CA, MD, CT, NY, IL, CO, NJ, HI, DC (and everyone who voted for or supports their gun laws) are enemies of freedom, and can kiss my ---.  

[.]

My AR was never illegal, the State of CA passed unconstitutional laws which I was not obliged to follow.

Perhaps I misspoke on confiscation, if you registered it, and were willing to modify it to a permanent 10-shooter, and not have any number of ordinary features on it, they would let you keep it.  That is the same as confiscation in my book.

CA, MD, CT, NY, IL, CO, HI, DC (and everyone who voted for or supports their gun laws) are enemies of freedom, and can kiss my ---.  

That's an interesting book you've got there.

[Willow]

Also, I am not confusing an action with a tool.  An automobile is a tool, you use it to drive, but there are still regulations regarding it's use and what you can operate on the street.  No one is trying to take away your automobile because you might kill someone with it.  

I really do think you are.

A speed limit is analogous to laws that dictate you can't use your gun to rob, threaten or injure another.

A law against ownership of certain types of guns ("assault weapons ban") is more closely paralleled by a law against owning a vehicle capable of traveling more than 75 miles per hour.

A law against operating an Indy Car on the street is analagous to a law against operating an assault weapon on the street.  Indy Car is for use on a race track, an assault weapon is for use on the battlefield.  Either not used in their proper place will likely result in an unnecessary loss of life.  Oh, but our streets could be the battlefield you say?  Our streets could be a racetrack too.

I guess you miss the point entirely.  Whether the law is against an Indy car on the street or a Corvette on the highway, it is, in fact, law against the tool rather than its use. I'm pretty comfortable with my logic, but not so much with yours.  You seem to be only specifying an extreme example to insist that your application isn't what it is.

I see you've entered an entirely different point into the discussion which exposes, it would seem, where you are coming from.

... an assault weapon is for use on the battlefield. 

One problem with that view is that it just may not be the case.

First, the term "assault weapon" is an invented term with no clear definition.

Second, what projectile is most effective for killing humans on the battlefield is also most effective for killing large game. 

Aside from those problems, the second amendment was intentionally created to specifically address the right of the common people to own and use weapons intended for use on the battlefield.  The roots of the concept of the right to bear arms actually trace back to swords in medieval England.  I'm not sure anyone ever did any serious hunting with swords.

I'm pretty sure you really did mistake the regulating of a tool with the prohibition of an action. 

 

[MAD6Gun]

 I am so sick of people telling us we do not need "assault weapons" or as I like to call them Sporting Rifles. Or the Modern Musket. They say that the founding fathers didnt have such weapons why should we. They didnt have the internet either. Why is this any different?  Daddy-0 you said that is not the same argument that you cant yell FIRE in a theater without repercusions. Well I cant go out and shoot up the street with my AR15 or even a single shot Sharps rifle without reprocusions as well. So tell me why is this any different huh???

A gun is just a object. A tool if you must. It can not fire itself. It takes someone to pick it up,aim it and pull the trigger.

[Jess from VA]

My AR was never illegal, the State of CA passed unconstitutional laws which I was not obliged to follow.

Perhaps I misspoke on confiscation, if you registered it, and were willing to modify it to a permanent 10-shooter, and not have any number of ordinary features on it, they would let you keep it.  That is the same as confiscation in my book.

CA, MD, CT, NY, IL, CO, HI, DC (and everyone who voted for or supports their gun laws) are enemies of freedom, and can kiss my ---.  

That's an interesting book you've got there.

More of a code really. 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Also, I am not confusing an action with a tool.  An automobile is a tool, you use it to drive, but there are still regulations regarding it's use and what you can operate on the street.  No one is trying to take away your automobile because you might kill someone with it.  

I really do think you are.

A speed limit is analogous to laws that dictate you can't use your gun to rob, threaten or injure another.

A law against ownership of certain types of guns ("assault weapons ban") is more closely paralleled by a law against owning a vehicle capable of traveling more than 75 miles per hour.

A law against operating an Indy Car on the street is analagous to a law against operating an assault weapon on the street.  Indy Car is for use on a race track, an assault weapon is for use on the battlefield.  Either not used in their proper place will likely result in an unnecessary loss of life.  Oh, but our streets could be the battlefield you say?  Our streets could be a racetrack too.

I'm sorry but that's absolutely not true.

America's citizens have had semi-auto firearms for over 100 years. To compare a mini-gun or maybe even a SAW (Squad automatic weapon) to an Indy car might be more accurate. And, both of those weapons would already be illegal for citizens to own unless they were made before 1986 and unless you pass the federal government's background check and buy the tax stamp. Transferable mini-guns are going for around $400,000 I think.

So called assault weapons are the same now as they were 100 years ago. They fire once for each pull of the trigger. AR's are more ergonomic than most 100 year-old semi-autos and they are safer and more dependable. But, with that exception they are the same as they have always been. And, AR's and AK's are generally manufactured in much wimpier calibers than hunting and  military rifles of the past. Although the AK does fire a 30 caliber round it's far less powerful than the .308 or 30.06 and is even inferior to the 30/30 in my opinion because of it's light weight bullets.

Semi-autos are the "go to" gun for America's citizens and have been for living memory. My Dad's old .22 caliber squirrel gun is a semi-auto which holds at least 15 rounds. It was manufactured in the 50's. My semi-auto 1911 is a copy of a design which dates back to 1911 of course. It was designed by John Browning who also designed a high capacity 9MM handgun at about the same time. If you think that semi-autos are somehow new and different then you are misinformed.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Not once in this debate have I seen the anti-gun poster mention in coherent terms how any gun laws will prevent, lower the incidence of, or stop crime. In fact, in his own state the Brady Campaign lists California as having the toughest gun control laws in the nation. While at the same time, the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report lists California as having had the most firearms murders in the country. So where's the correlation that restricting the ownership of weapons by the law abiding citizen results in a reduction in crime? No....all you want to do is write about "drawing the line" in the sand in front of the law abiding people of this country.

Fact is, these people dance in the blood of 20 dead children at Sandy Hook because it gets their self-aggrandizing, sensationalist agenda on the network news. These childrens' blood wasn't dried on the floors of that school before they were all over the news wailing about "assault weapons." Never mind that Adam Lanza exacted his carnage with two hand guns; committing 3 felonies to obtain the weapons before he ever even reached the school. Never mind that Gabby Giffords was shot in the head with a handgun legally obtained from a licensed FFL. If the government had incorporated the mental illness database into the current background check system, chances are this guy would have been flagged and denied the purchase. Oh, and let's not forget that the NRA has lobbied the government to include that database into the checks system since the 1960's.

Instead of rationale, they choose to grandstand with outrageous "what ifs?" They choose to use veiled insults towards the gun owning public such as "Damn Libruhls tryin to take muh grenades!" and "Don't they know its muh right!" It's the typical stance taken by those who cannot offer a valid argument or solution to the problem of crime in this country.

For decades the liberal left has bastardized the language. They use the words "pro-choice" to refer to pro-abortionists. "Gay" is used to refer to homosexuals. And for the last several years they have trotted out the term "assault weapon" to refer to semi-automatic rifles. A term meant to do nothing more than instill fear. And we all know that a fearful populace is an easier controlled populace.

Just like the video says: These people are bent on cutting off the horns of the gazelle and sitting back, twiddling their thumbs, and hoping the predators just go away.

Very well said, in particular the part about bastardizing the language. It frequently seems that the left read Orwell's 1984 and mistook it for a "guide to better government". The term "doublespeak" from that book, if my memory serves me describes exactly the practice making a law or practice sound like the opposite of what it actually is. "Common sense gun safety laws" designed to leave everyone at the mercy of the stronger, bigger or better armed are "doublespeak" at it's finest.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I must also say I find it amusing that the only Podunk sounding, uneducated sounding remarks in this entire thread came from the "Grenade Man" as he attempted to make fun of the freedom lovers who in his bigoted mind must talk like a cross between a Hill Jack and Karl Childers from Slingblade.  

I thought liberals were against prejudice and judgmental actions and thinking?

[Daddie O]

Ha! Your personal attacks while trying to refute my points are amusing.  A few points to make.  I am not a gun hater, I own guns and am skilled at using them.  If the thought of a proud gun owning Californian sends chills up your spine then you might want to move to a hotter climate.  There are probably more gun owning Californians than there are people living in your state.  If you want an example of laws preventing crime in relation to weapons, how many deaths were there by grenade last year?  You see if everyone were allowed to purchase grenades you can bet there would be more grenade deaths.  There would be mentally disturbed people that "go postal" and use their legally obtained grenade illegally.  There would be criminals who have stolen the grenades from law abiding citizens and used them illegally.    No access to grenades (or as I like to call them fishing bombs  ) = no grenade deaths.  No its not the grenade killing people, its people with access to grenades that kill people.  Sure you can hunt with a fully automatic assault weapon.  You can fish with grenades too, that doesn't mean everyone should have them.  Restricting access does in fact restrict deaths.  If there were no assault weapons available then people wouldn't be able to kill with them.

I have offered many valid points, you just disagree with them.  Most of what we are talking about are opinions, and not facts.  Gun violence doesn't have only one cause, so there is no one solution.  I do know that without assault weapons there would be no assault weapon deaths.  How many people exactly were killed by AK-47's in the 1500's?  Sure, we could go back to the stone age and people would be killing eachother with rocks and sticks, it is the person that uses the tool that causes the death, but you wouldnt be able to kill too many people with a rock before you were stopped, unlike an assault weapon.  

You want to talk about fear?  It is your irrational fear that our government is turning into a dictatorship that wants nothing more than you to turn in your guns and become fully dependent on them that clouds your mind, and doesn't allow logic to take hold when thinking about common sense gun control.  Contrary to your idea that liberals are bastardizing language, it is actually conservative think tanks that actively engage in this behavior.  They have written books on how to do it.  Best example of that is the term "Illegal Alien".  A person can not be illegal, only an action can be, but in turning a human being into something illegal you can shape opinion on them.  If you are caught speeding are you an "Illegal Driver"?  If you don't pay your taxes are you an illegal?  What about if you rape or murder someone, are you an illegal?  If your visa expired you are an illegal though?  Please.  An expired visa or crossing the border in the middle of the night without proper immigration paperwork isn't even a criminal offense!  Immigration is a civil matter, with a lot of discretion given to the judge.  A judge may decide even if you are here without documents you are allowed to stay for many, many different reasons.  Yet conservatives have deemed a person illegal, comin' to steal muh job!   How about instead of calling people against the right to abortions "Anti-Choice", and maybe we should call assault rifles "easy to use massive death devices".  Oh wait, the liberal side isn't doing that is it?

Part of the problem in these debates is the conservative side of things lumping everyone and everything into easily labeled categories.  Liberuls after muh guns,  Illegals after muh jobs.  Californians with guns gimmie chills.  Sure there are over 35 million Californians, but it just can't be possible that there are any proud gun owners.  You really believe that it's also not possible to own a gun and understand the need for regulation?  Oh wait, you understand we shouldn't have nukes, or bio weapons, you just cant understand the logic of the idea that we shouldn't have assault weapons?  Maybe if grenade makers donate more money to the NRA, and the NRA gives more money to the repubs then you will start to believe you should have grenades too.  Speaking of guns as tools, you are the tool of the gun lobby, and you lack common sense.

[Detn8er]

Ha! Your personal attacks while trying to refute my points are amusing.  A few points to make.  I am not a gun hater, I own guns and am skilled at using them.  If the thought of a proud gun owning Californian sends chills up your spine then you might want to move to a hotter climate.  There are probably more gun owning Californians than there are people living in your state.  If you want an example of laws preventing crime in relation to weapons, how many deaths were there by grenade last year?  You see if everyone were allowed to purchase grenades you can bet there would be more grenade deaths.  There would be mentally disturbed people that "go postal" and use their legally obtained grenade illegally.  There would be criminals who have stolen the grenades from law abiding citizens and used them illegally.    No access to grenades (or as I like to call them fishing bombs  ) = no grenade deaths.  No its not the grenade killing people, its people with access to grenades that kill people.  Sure you can hunt with a fully automatic assault weapon.  You can fish with grenades too, that doesn't mean everyone should have them.  Restricting access does in fact restrict deaths.  If there were no assault weapons available then people wouldn't be able to kill with them.

I have offered many valid points, you just disagree with them.  Most of what we are talking about are opinions, and not facts.  Gun violence doesn't have only one cause, so there is no one solution.  I do know that without assault weapons there would be no assault weapon deaths.  Sure, we could go back to the stone age and people would be killing eachother with rocks and sticks, it is the person that uses the tool that causes the death, but you wouldnt be able to kill too many people with a rock before you were stopped, unlike an assault weapon.  

You want to talk about fear?  It is your irrational fear that our government is turning into a dictatorship that wants nothing more than you to turn in your guns and become fully dependent on them that clouds your mind, and doesn't allow logic to take hold when thinking about common sense gun control.  Contrary to your idea that liberals are bastardizing language, it is actually conservative think tanks that actively engage in this behavior.  They have written books on how to do it.  Best example of that is the term "Illegal Alien".  A person can not be illegal, only an action can be, but in turning a human being into something illegal you can shape opinion on them.  If you are caught speeding are you an "Illegal Driver"?  If you don't pay your taxes are you an illegal?  What about if you rape or murder someone, are you an illegal?  If your visa expired you are an illegal though?  Please.  An expired visa or crossing the border in the middle of the night without proper immigration paperwork isn't even a criminal offense!  Immigration is a civil matter, with a lot of discretion given to the judge.  A judge may decide even if you are here without documents you are allowed to stay for many, many different reasons.  Yet conservatives have deemed a person illegal, comin' to steal muh job!   How about instead of calling people against the right to abortions "Anti-Choice", and maybe we should call assault rifles "easy to use massive death devices".  Oh wait, the liberal side isn't doing that is it?

Part of the problem in these debates is the conservative side of things lumping everyone and everything into easily labeled categories.  Liberuls after muh guns,  Illegals after muh jobs.  Californians with guns gimmie chills.  Sure there are over 35 million Californians, but it just can't be possible that there are any proud gun owners.  You really believe that it's also not possible to own a gun and understand the need for regulation?  Oh wait, you understand we shouldn't have nukes, or bio weapons, you just cant understand the logic of the idea that we shouldn't have assault weapons?

[Daddie O]

I accept your concession of defeat.