Take away Americans guns

[musterion]

Originally Posted byTomO
So you are a pacifist I take it? Someone can physically attack you and/or your loved ones and you will not resist with "violence"?

See? He didn't answer you.

 

[PureX]

If cooks can not get guns, then they will use bombs. Then what?

Well, by the logic of the NRA, the republican party, and the Christian right, we should sell as many bombs as we can to as many citizens as we can get to guy them. After all, if more guns is the logical solution to gun violence, then more bombs must be the logical answer to bomb violence. Right?

 

[CherubRam]

Well, by the logic of the NRA, the republican party, and the Christian right, we should sell as many bombs as we can to as many citizens as we can get to guy them. After all, if more guns is the logical solution to gun violence, then more bombs must be the logical answer to bomb violence. Right?

If you take away the guns from the people, then only criminals will have them. Do you want the right to protect yourself and your family, or not?

 

[theophilus]

If cooks can not get guns, then they will use bombs. Then what?

Why do you think cooks can not get guns?

:rotfl:

 

[theophilus]

If cooks can not get guns, then they will use bombs. Then what?

Kooks CAN get guns.

On the street.

Cheap.

 

[chair]

If you take away the guns from the people, then only criminals will have them. Do you want the right to protect yourself and your family, or not?

It is probably too late to do anything about this in the US. Years of easy gun access have turned the country into the Wild West. It's a shame.

 

[TomO]

See? He didn't answer you.

I'm not really surprised.

 

[Nihilo]

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-israel-guns_us_575f0721e4b0e4fe5143407a

From the link:

The Sunshine State, which received an “F” last year on a scorecard compiled by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, doesn’t restrict the sale of assault weapons,¹ limit the number of guns that can be purchased at one time,² or require background checks for private sales,³ including sales at gun shows.

1 - The famous/infamous "assault weapons ban," which did "restrict the sale of" certain rifles, "banned" the following: magazines holding more than 10 rounds. It also forbid these certain rifles from having too many features; namely, "pistol" style grip, bayonet lug, flash hiders. Only the restriction on magazine capacity might have altered the outcome of the Orlando massacre.
2 - Since the Orlando mass-murderer/terrorist used exactly one rifle, this again wouldn't have changed the outcome.
3 - Again, irrelevant to the incident in Orlando.

Guns & Ammo magazine ranked Florida as the 12th-best state to own a gun, describing the state’s laws as the “envy of gun owners nationwide.”

So what.

 

[Nihilo]

This all comes from viewing gun ownership as a "right".

Which in turn comes from viewing self defense as a "right."

Nobody views car ownership that way.

Right.

 

[serpentdove]

No thanks. We'll keep them (Lk 22:36). :BillyBob:

See:

Lone Wolf

 

[Nihilo]

The ideal world of the Christian right ...

This is complete exaggeration.

On the global stage though, international relations, this is very much like how it actually is, except instead of firearms we've all got nukes pointed at each other. That really should be a lot more concerning than how many people own and carry pistols, rifles or machine guns IMO.

 

[Nihilo]

Well, by the logic of the NRA, the republican party, and the Christian right, we should sell as many bombs as we can to as many citizens as we can get to guy them. After all, if more guns is the logical solution to gun violence, then more bombs must be the logical answer to bomb violence. Right?

Nations have decided that yes, you're right. City-leveling bombs. Everybody who's already got some get more, and those without any want some. If someone levels one of our cities, we'll level some or all of theirs. It's a deterrent.

 

[Nihilo]

It is probably too late to do anything about this in the US. Years of easy gun access have turned the country into the Wild West. It's a shame.

It's also an exaggeration. What a joke.

 

[annabenedetti]

This all comes from viewing gun ownership as a "right". Nobody views car ownership that way.

Try saying that in Southern California.

You can pry my steering wheel out of my cold dead hands. :chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

It's also an exaggeration. What a joke.

You can't say there aren't a LOT of guns out there...

Gun shop owner: AR-15s flying off the shelves (according to him, at the rate of 15 per hour).

 

[patrick jane]

Well, by the logic of the NRA, the republican party, and the Christian right, we should sell as many bombs as we can to as many citizens as we can get to guy them. After all, if more guns is the logical solution to gun violence, then more bombs must be the logical answer to bomb violence. Right?

We don't have the right to bear bombs

 

[PureX]

If you take away the guns from the people, then only criminals will have them. Do you want the right to protect yourself and your family, or not?

NO ONE IS PROPOSING TAKING ANYONE'S GUNS AWAY.

Why is it SO difficult for you people to grasp even the most basic facts of this issue?

 

[PureX]

Nations have decided that yes, you're right. City-leveling bombs. Everybody who's already got some get more, and those without any want some. If someone levels one of our cities, we'll level some or all of theirs. It's a deterrent.

It's very likely total annihilation if anyone ever uses even one of them.

So it's a very poor analogy to guns, don't you think?

 

[PureX]

This is complete exaggeration.

On the global stage though, international relations, this is very much like how it actually is, except instead of firearms we've all got nukes pointed at each other. That really should be a lot more concerning than how many people own and carry pistols, rifles or machine guns IMO.

On the global scale, we work VERY HARD at keeping nukes out of the hands of lunatics. You might even call it "nuke control". We do this because we recognize that it's insane to let lunatics have weapons of mass destruction.

Yet the NRA, the republican party, and the Christians right can't seem to grasp this simple fact of reality. As, apparently, you have not.

 

[PureX]

From the link:
1 - The famous/infamous "assault weapons ban," which did "restrict the sale of" certain rifles, "banned" the following: magazines holding more than 10 rounds. It also forbid these certain rifles from having too many features; namely, "pistol" style grip, bayonet lug, flash hiders. Only the restriction on magazine capacity might have altered the outcome of the Orlando massacre.
2 - Since the Orlando mass-murderer/terrorist used exactly one rifle, this again wouldn't have changed the outcome.
3 - Again, irrelevant to the incident in Orlando.
So what.

The shooter in Orlando had been investigated twice by the FBI, but because the republicans had voted against a law that would have denied him the ability to buy guns because he was on a 'watch list', he was able to buy the very guns he used to kill all those people.

So as it turns out, this is all quite relevant to Orlando. In fact, this particular incident has embarrassed the republican legislators to such a degree that they are now backing down on their desire to deny that legislation.