patrick.net

TwoScoopsMcGee says

There is NO link between the increasing prevalence of firearms and the decreasing homicide rate.

Then why did you claim there was a link for so long? I was beginning to think you were the poster boy for the failings of the american educational system. Can you let ironman know this now?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Bob, do you want more gun restrictions?

No I don't want more gun restrictions. Depending on what you define as restriction. But I don't want this bullshit about increasing numbers of guns reducing the murder rate used as a wedge for the NRA to destroy any type of rational rules about gun ownership. Look at Wisconsin. They proposed carry with the stipulation of needing to take a class. The NRA (aka the gun manufacturers) went apeshit and carpet bombed the state with a blitz of propaganda about how having to take a class was dismantling the second amendment. Absurd.

What I do want is to track guns. Strawmen buyers are providing criminals with the majority of their guns. They should be in jail as should the legit gun owner who sold a gun to them no questions asked. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html You and ironman can look up many more articles and studies that say the same thing. There is this really cool new program called google.com. Check it out. Just type where do criminals get their guns and lots of stuff to read comes up. Really it's true.

My house is gun free as well, and I guarantee if one of you sissy fucking Betas came around here looking for shit, you’d get tossed out on your ass with a mouthful. That sign is dumb.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

But yeah, I'm a brain damaged liar who denies the reality that Democrats don't want to ban guns.

Yes, God forbid that a hunter can't go out and kill a deer with an assault rifle. Just how the Founding Fathers intended.

me123 says

What exactly is a "assault rifle"? Can you explain what it is for me?

There is no set definition per se. Congress defined it in the 1994 ban as this:



Others have other definitions such as this:

"The technical definition of an assault rifle consists of four requirements:
1 It is a shoulder mounted weapon
2. It is magazine fed.
3. It is intermediate power.
4. It is selective fire."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-assault-rifle

TwoScoopsMcGee says

How about the 2016 Dem platform?

"To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf (Page 39)
When the Assault Rifle ban expired, did the homicide rate go up or down?

But yeah, I'm a brain damaged liar who denies the reality that Democrats don't want to ban guns.

Waw, waw, waw. Those bad democrats want to ban ar-15's and ak-47's. That's awful. They are such great hunting rifles. Plus, how can I hunt deer without a 30 round clip and bump stock? Dont' forget a silencer, wouldn't want hearing damage.

It's good that you recognize you are a brain damaged liar. Admitting to a problem is the first step to a cure.

The same way they were banned in the past. You make a definition when you write the law.

There are intelligent right wingers out there. .But they are mighty dishonest too, if they thought Trump was a safer bet than Clinton.

me123 says

As an aside, an”assault weapon” is a phrase made up by the anti-gun crowd to confuse the issue of what a weapon actually is.

Pretty amazing that the federal government was able to have an assault weapon ban when cic says there isn't any assault weapons. How did they do that?

me123 says

bob2356 says

me123 says

As an aside, an”assault weapon” is a phrase made up by the anti-gun crowd to confuse the issue of what a weapon actually is.

Pretty amazing that the federal government was able to have an assault weapon ban when cic says there isn't any assault weapons. How did they do that?

and did you see the YYUUGGEE number of decreased homicides because of it. Worked well, didn't it?

So now you are saying there is such a thing as an assault weapon. First there isn't now there is.

To OP ... seems very clear what the majority of the population is asking for:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx

It's pretty simple zzyyxx:

Dems want to close the loopholes by which such shooters can very easily obtain guns.

Rew says

To OP ... seems very clear what the majority of the population is asking for:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx

Finally a semblance of a wishlist.

Now, to the second part: what are you going to offer in return? How about national shall-issue CCW permits in exchange for #1 on the list?

joeyjojojunior says

It's pretty simple zzyyxx:

Dems want to close the loopholes by which such shooters can very easily obtain guns.

So tell us, Joey, where did this guy buy his evil "assault weapon"?

Sniper says

So tell us, Joey the TROLL, where did this guy buy his evil "assault weapon"?

Again with the emotion. You guys just can't make an argument without it, huh?

But, it looks like Mr. Kelley got his gun from a local sporting goods store.

Sniper says

Looks like that destroys your "loophole" narrative, doesn't it?

Not really. Obviously the background check didn't work. Let's fix it.

Sniper says

With what, MORE gun laws?

You do know that criminals don't give a shit about CURRENT laws right? That's why we need MORE laws? Did I get that right?

Ah, the same tired old argument. So, by that logic we should get rid of all laws then, right? Murderers and rapists obviously didn't care about the laws so let's get rid of them.

All these mass shootings are keeping me entertained.
Maybe we will have another one soon because killing is what man's really good at.

Sniper says

Hey Joey the TROLL, got an answer yet to the questions?

I already answered it. I didn't think I needed to repeat myself over and over again.

joeyjojojunior says

Dems want to close the loopholes by which such shooters can very easily obtain guns.

So, they're kind of new laws, but really more just improvements to current laws.

Sniper says

I asked for SPECIFIC laws that would have prevented him from buying, NOT your trolling narrative.

What specific NEW law would have stopped him?

I don't care what you asked for piggy. Everyone else on the thread understands...

Sniper says

Your honor, I rest my case.

OK--this is the last time I'll engage you. I answered your question. Let's close the loopholes. For example, as Bob mentioned on another thread-let's require background checks on private sales/gun shows.

Sniper says

What NEW laws is your Tribe proposing that would have prevented this guy from buying his guns. This should be a real easy answer for you, if you were really serious, and not just a TROLL.

wtf---there is no law requiring background checks at gun shows. I'm saying let's pass a NEW law requiring them. Is that too hard for you to follow?

Sniper says

Ahhh, so that would have prevent this guy from buying the guns, if they checked him out before he bought them at a local gun show. Good!

Nope--but it would prevent some people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Or do you think it's not worth potentially saving hundreds of lives?

Anyone catch the exit polling stats for Virginia on issues that mattered to voters?

Immigration: red
Healthcare: blue
Guns: 50/50 split!

California looking to implement enforcement to take guns from convicted felons and mentally ill.

It's happening.

US is going to shift here. As fast as we did on same sex marriage? Tough to say, but it for sure has started. Time is on the side of better gun regs and enforcement.

Sniper says

I would love to save lives, I just keep asking you for sensible laws that would WORK in these cases but not infringe on lawful owners, but all you keep posting is nonsense that has no bearing on reality.

So you think that background checks don't work and infringe on lawful owners?