America's Gun Violence

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

So then there's no infringment. Being regulated means you're in line with the Constitution.

Trying to pass ammo stamping and mag size limits is an infringement. Taxing a Right is an infringement. Requiring a license on a Right is an infringement.

Remember how you guys are against requiring an ID to vote?

Either way, pass all the laws you want, it just expands the black market.

Well, fortunately for gun owners, they cannot pass all of the laws they want, especially on a federal level. Yet they keep throwing more and more money at it, losing elections one at a time. You would think that they would put a little time and effort into education, training, poverty at some point...I bet you would find more deficits correlating with violence in those areas and money better spent as well. With all of the wasted $ spent by Bloomberg, there could be some great improvements to inner city schools in the most poverse of communities or after school programs...or you name it. Thwarting the gang culture would make a big difference related to firearm violence numbers...but that's not their real goal is it?

Wouldn't it also be great if the NRA did the same thing?

They do a lot towards gun safety training. I think they are accomplishing their goals of protecting and expanding gun owner rights, so I'm not sure they are wasting $ in the same way Bloomberg has.

Fear based propaganda and buying congress may not be the best use of dollars.

mcgruff10

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

So then there's no infringment. Being regulated means you're in line with the Constitution.

Trying to pass ammo stamping and mag size limits is an infringement. Taxing a Right is an infringement. Requiring a license on a Right is an infringement.

Remember how you guys are against requiring an ID to vote?

Either way, pass all the laws you want, it just expands the black market.

Well, fortunately for gun owners, they cannot pass all of the laws they want, especially on a federal level. Yet they keep throwing more and more money at it, losing elections one at a time. You would think that they would put a little time and effort into education, training, poverty at some point...I bet you would find more deficits correlating with violence in those areas and money better spent as well. With all of the wasted $ spent by Bloomberg, there could be some great improvements to inner city schools in the most poverse of communities or after school programs...or you name it. Thwarting the gang culture would make a big difference related to firearm violence numbers...but that's not their real goal is it?

Wouldn't it also be great if the NRA did the same thing?

They do a lot towards gun safety training. I think they are accomplishing their goals of protecting and expanding gun owner rights, so I'm not sure they are wasting $ in the same way Bloomberg has.

Fear based propaganda and buying congress may not be the best use of dollars.

yeah those are two things I really hate about bloomberg.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

So then there's no infringment. Being regulated means you're in line with the Constitution.

Trying to pass ammo stamping and mag size limits is an infringement. Taxing a Right is an infringement. Requiring a license on a Right is an infringement.

Remember how you guys are against requiring an ID to vote?

Either way, pass all the laws you want, it just expands the black market.

Well, fortunately for gun owners, they cannot pass all of the laws they want, especially on a federal level. Yet they keep throwing more and more money at it, losing elections one at a time. You would think that they would put a little time and effort into education, training, poverty at some point...I bet you would find more deficits correlating with violence in those areas and money better spent as well. With all of the wasted $ spent by Bloomberg, there could be some great improvements to inner city schools in the most poverse of communities or after school programs...or you name it. Thwarting the gang culture would make a big difference related to firearm violence numbers...but that's not their real goal is it?

Wouldn't it also be great if the NRA did the same thing?

They do a lot towards gun safety training. I think they are accomplishing their goals of protecting and expanding gun owner rights, so I'm not sure they are wasting $ in the same way Bloomberg has.

Fear based propaganda and buying congress may not be the best use of dollars.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic.com/articles/amp/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear?client=safari

I was not aware of a few of these. Overall, the NRA has done more than Bloomberg on promoting safety and in several other realms.

Go Beavers

#11. About 40 years ago, the NRA started a push to influence the Supreme Court by buying off senators in order for them to place gun friendly justices on the court. Fast forward to now, and the term "militia" in the Constitution has been ruled to apply to the individual, rather than the militia.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

#11. About 40 years ago, the NRA started a push to influence the Supreme Court by buying off senators in order for them to place gun friendly justices on the court. Fast forward to now, and the term "militia" in the Constitution has been ruled to apply to the individual, rather than the militia.

Meh, I agree with that ruling and believe that the people should be able to arm themselves. I know that there are some that are on the opposite side of that fence, but that is their failed prerogative. "What difference does it make at this point" -HRC

unsung

CM189191 said:

.

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

Good for you. Leave your armaments at the armory. When you're called to duty, you can go pick them up.

That defeats the purpose. If the militia were called up all an aggressor would need to do is capture the depot ahead of time.

Maybe you misunderstand why there are militias.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

.

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

Good for you. Leave your armaments at the armory. When you're called to duty, you can go pick them up.

That defeats the purpose. If the militia were called up all an aggressor would need to do is capture the depot ahead of time.

Maybe you misunderstand why there are militias.

Thank you for your service and sacrifice. What are you going to do when you're 46?

CM189191

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

.

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

Good for you. Leave your armaments at the armory. When you're called to duty, you can go pick them up.

That defeats the purpose. If the militia were called up all an aggressor would need to do is capture the depot ahead of time.

Maybe you misunderstand why there are militias.

It doesn't sound like your militia is very well-regulated.

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

.

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

Good for you. Leave your armaments at the armory. When you're called to duty, you can go pick them up.

That defeats the purpose. If the militia were called up all an aggressor would need to do is capture the depot ahead of time.

Maybe you misunderstand why there are militias.

Thank you for your service and sacrifice. What are you going to do when you're 46?

No ageism in my State Militia.

polaris_x

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

Lol, wow, that GMO piece must have ruffles some feathers. Links, sources? Where is this objective research you elude to that is from a non-partisan/biased source? The Greenpiece article that I think you are referring to is actually spot on, and people that blindly throw their money to them display an ability to think critically but that is a whole other thread.

dude ... go check out that thread ... your lobbyist funded piece held no water ...

"Lobbyist funded piece" from sciencealert.com? If anything, they are left leaning.

read the links I posted in that thread ... it was a bullshit study put forth by the gm foods lobby ... you posted it because it fuels your internal biases and because you lack the objectivity to scratch even a little bit of the surface of it to see that it is complete bs ...

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

.

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

All gun laws are infringements. We won't comply.

Infringement on what?

Why bother asking a follow up to that? No answer will have any reasoning.

It is a question that he already knows the answer to.

I was thinking laws were part of a well regulated militia.

Ok, I am in a militia.

Good for you. Leave your armaments at the armory. When you're called to duty, you can go pick them up.

That defeats the purpose. If the militia were called up all an aggressor would need to do is capture the depot ahead of time.

Maybe you misunderstand why there are militias.

Thank you for your service and sacrifice. What are you going to do when you're 46?

No ageism in my State Militia.

Even as a grandad, you'll follow those orders from your governor.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Bentleyspop said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Unsung...

C'mon, man.

Nah, no more playing nice on this trying to show my side. Simple fact there's nothing going to happen, nor will we comply to laws limiting our Rights.

Careful with that kind of rhetoric
You know very well the government sees everything you write.

But I'm sure you'll be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself when President Obama sends in his U.N. troops for you and your "militia".

It isn't rhetoric.

Every single restriction on anything creates a black market. It is a natural response.

BTW, my "militia" is defined in my State Constitution. We aren't a group of wingnuts, our State sponsors us by law.

uh....ok

PJPOWER

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

Lol, wow, that GMO piece must have ruffles some feathers. Links, sources? Where is this objective research you elude to that is from a non-partisan/biased source? The Greenpiece article that I think you are referring to is actually spot on, and people that blindly throw their money to them display an ability to think critically but that is a whole other thread.

dude ... go check out that thread ... your lobbyist funded piece held no water ...

"Lobbyist funded piece" from sciencealert.com? If anything, they are left leaning.

read the links I posted in that thread ... it was a bullshit study put forth by the gm foods lobby ... you posted it because it fuels your internal biases and because you lack the objectivity to scratch even a little bit of the surface of it to see that it is complete bs ...

Wow, you sure know a lot about me, I'm stunned. It was not complete BS and there are still plenty in the scientific community that are critical of greenpeace's agenda and strategies...one of their founders being a prominent critic. Regardless, let's discuss that in that thread if it needs discussing.

PJPOWER

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Bentleyspop said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Unsung...

C'mon, man.

Nah, no more playing nice on this trying to show my side. Simple fact there's nothing going to happen, nor will we comply to laws limiting our Rights.

Careful with that kind of rhetoric
You know very well the government sees everything you write.

But I'm sure you'll be ready, willing, and able to defend yourself when President Obama sends in his U.N. troops for you and your "militia".

It isn't rhetoric.

Every single restriction on anything creates a black market. It is a natural response.

BTW, my "militia" is defined in my State Constitution. We aren't a group of wingnuts, our State sponsors us by law.

uh....ok

You shouldn't post your personal pics for everyone to see. No one wants to see you in your undies Gern

Gern Blansten

how old are you? 12?

PJPOWER

Gern Blansten said:

how old are you? 12?

I'll ask you the same question after childishly posting that pic.

mcgruff10

Gern Blansten said:

how old are you? 12?

Coming from a guy who is at "your mom's".

Gern Blansten

mcgruff10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

how old are you? 12?

Coming from a guy who is at "your mom's".

et tu mcgruff?

mcgruff10

Gern Blansten said:

mcgruff10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

how old are you? 12?

Coming from a guy who is at "your mom's".

et tu mcgruff?

nickname...last name is mcgrath. made the screen name in 03 I think.

polaris_x

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

polaris_x said:

PJPOWER said:

Even if that is the case, at some time you've got to realize that this gun control push has been largely ineffective and expensive and counterproductive when it comes to winning elections. Guns are easily available and will be for a very long time if not forever in the US. Where could that money be better spent...poverty, education, training?

every piece of objective research shows that jurisdictions with reasonable gun laws have lower incidences of homicide rates due to guns ... i'm not sure why anyone would argue this point for the pro-gun side ... just stick with protecting your family and be done with it ... trying to prove it through objective stats is just not going to work ... you're left with biased and pr/lobbyist funded websites ... and similar to what you posted about greenpeace and gmo - it just makes you look like a partisan hack who can't actually think critically about an issue ...

Lol, wow, that GMO piece must have ruffles some feathers. Links, sources? Where is this objective research you elude to that is from a non-partisan/biased source? The Greenpiece article that I think you are referring to is actually spot on, and people that blindly throw their money to them display an ability to think critically but that is a whole other thread.

dude ... go check out that thread ... your lobbyist funded piece held no water ...

"Lobbyist funded piece" from sciencealert.com? If anything, they are left leaning.

read the links I posted in that thread ... it was a bullshit study put forth by the gm foods lobby ... you posted it because it fuels your internal biases and because you lack the objectivity to scratch even a little bit of the surface of it to see that it is complete bs ...

Wow, you sure know a lot about me, I'm stunned. It was not complete BS and there are still plenty in the scientific community that are critical of greenpeace's agenda and strategies...one of their founders being a prominent critic. Regardless, let's discuss that in that thread if it needs discussing.

listen ... it's by no means personal ... and I apologize if my posts come off as negatively attacking you ... it's really a combination of being tired of people posting things that are BS ... the 107 so called nobel laureates signed something that made no sense ... it was just the same old PR lobbyist funded campaigns that have distorted the truth and keeping people from being truly informed ... all I hope is that people would actually do a little bit of research and think critically about something even if it supports your bias because spreading mistruths is what makes it hard to find compromise and common ground ...

but you're right - if you want to go back to that thread you started and defend it ... it should be discussed there ... it's just that you are using misrepresentations again to further your bias on gun laws ...