patrick.net

No Guns allowed. Gun free zone.

That's why the entire country must be a gun-free zone. Allowing guns any place means the plague will spread. Treat guns like narcotics. Zero tolerance.

After the sit in, Republicans will pass a funding bill to make sure all terrorist can afford "arms".

Liberal playbook.

1) Disarm law abiding citizens
2) Arm criminals
3) Blame gun ownership for crime and further disarm law abiding citizens.
4) Convince people that only they can protect them from criminals to keep themselves in power.

That's the rough draft there...

Liberal playbook

Disarm everyone who isn't on duty military or police personnel. You cannot tell who is going to be a terrorist, criminal, or crazy. There's a reason we don't let people have nukes and bombs. That same reason applies to guns. Protect actual rights like free speech, privacy, and the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to make legal challenges to state actions.

Conservative playbook
1. Remove all the basic human rights from law biding citizens such as the right not to have your ass and genitals fondled and penetrated against your will, i.e. rape.
2. Pretend that owning one particular kind of murder weapon is a basic human right even though the vast majority of arms are completely illegal and it's so obviously insane to propose making them legal.
3. Arm everyone and hope their not criminals, crazies, or terrorists.
4. When the criminals, crazies, and terrorists you armed kill people with guns, blame the ability to have a private conversation or secure data on an iPhone instead of the gross availability of murder tools.
5. When anyone proposes a common sense measure like not letting people on the terrorist watch list buy guns, call the proposal an assault on liberties and the proposer a no-good liberal.

The NRA and the gun nuts are not there to protect you. They only arrive after the fact, like the cops.

I don't need anyone to protect me, I can protect myself just fine.

FortWayne says

1) Disarm law abiding citizens

2) Arm criminals

3) Blame gun ownership for crime and further disarm law abiding citizens.

4) Convince people that only they can protect them from criminals to keep themselves in power.

Absolutely correct.

Liberals may as well ban pressure cookers, vehicles, matches, box knives, air travel, crock pots, fertilizer, gasoline, fireworks, knives, kitchen utensils - including sporks, hammers, any and all tools.... see where this is going?

At this rate, we may as well ban gyms and not allow personal fitness - to limit people from staying in shape. Because, those who are stronger than others are a physical threat to the weak.

joshuatrio says

Liberals may as well ban pressure cookers, vehicles, matches, box knives, air travel, crock pots, fertilizer, gasoline, fireworks, knives, kitchen utensils - including sporks, hammers, any and all tools.... see where this is going?

And conservatives may as well legalize nuclear weapons for all... see where this is going?

tatupu70 says

And conservatives may as well legalize nuclear weapons for all... see where this is going?

Bad point. Look at your turd Obama:

"Obama has backed investment in new nuclear delivery systems, upgraded warheads, resilient command networks, and industrial sites for fabricating nuclear hardware that, when added to the expense of maintaining the existing arsenal, will cost $348 billion between 2015 and 2024. At least, that’s what the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If the Obama plan continues to be funded by his successors, it will be the biggest U.S. buildup of nuclear arms since Ronald Reagan left the White House."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/12/15/obama-backs-biggest-nuclear-arms-buildup-since-cold-war/#7958df9a2262

Liberals MUST blame something other than their numerous failed policies that actually created the mess...

joshuatrio says

Bad point. Look at your turd Obama:

"Obama has backed investment in new nuclear delivery systems, upgraded warheads, resilient command networks, and industrial sites for fabricating nuclear hardware that, when added to the expense of maintaining the existing arsenal, will cost $348 billion between 2015 and 2024. At least, that’s what the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If the Obama plan continues to be funded by his successors, it will be the biggest U.S. buildup of nuclear arms since Ronald Reagan left the White House."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/12/15/obama-backs-biggest-nuclear-arms-buildup-since-cold-war/#7958df9a2262

What does that have to do with legalizing nuclear weapon ownership to all citizens? As guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?

Quigley says

Liberals MUST blame something other than their numerous failed policies that actually created the mess...

Which policy caused a closet homosexual to take out his frustrations on a group of gay folks?

tatupu70 says

What does that have to do with legalizing nuclear weapon ownership to all citizens? As guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?

Guns are legal. Personal nukes are not. What's your point?

joshuatrio says

tatupu70 says

What does that have to do with legalizing nuclear weapon ownership to all citizens? As guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?

Guns are legal. Personal nukes are not. What's your point?

Your point seemed to be that it was pointless to ban any guns since there are always other weapons that someone could find to kill people. By that logic, you should legalize all weapons. Certainly all "arms" as the Constitution clearly dictates. As such, any citizen should have the right to own a nuclear device.

If you don't believe the above, then you already acknowledge that it is not in society's best interest to allow all citizens to legally own any and all weapons. And it's just a matter of where to draw the line.

tatupu70 says

Your point seemed to be that it was pointless to ban any guns since there are always other weapons that someone could find to kill people.

My point was that by using liberal logic, we should all live in padded cells. There is a level of risk in living.

Using nukes as an example in your case is a strawmans argument.

Reality: The bad guys aren't going to give up their guns. Duh. Why would you? Ban them, make them illegal, create gun-free zones and guess what - the bad guys/terrorists/crazies will still show up and mow people down. Libs will then stand around and be like "WTF, I thought we banned guns?"

joshuatrio says

My point was that by using liberal logic, we should all live in padded cells. There is a level of risk in living.

Yep, and my point is that it's still beneficial to try to reduce that risk whenever possible.

joshuatrio says

Reality: The bad guys aren't going to give up their guns. Duh. Why would you? Ban them, make them illegal, create gun-free zones and guess what - the bad guys/terrorists/crazies will still show up and mow people down. Libs will then stand around and be like "WTF, I thought we banned guns?"

Of course some criminals will still be able to get assault rifles. But if you can make it more difficult for them to obtain guns, it may stop some % of attacks. I'd rather stop 10% than stop 0%. It's not an all or nothing thing.

tatupu70 says

Yep, and my point is that it's still beneficial to try to reduce that risk whenever possible.

You proved my point.

tatupu70 says

Of course some criminals will still be able to get assault rifles. But if you can make it more difficult for them to obtain guns, it may stop some % of attacks. I'd rather stop 10% than stop 0%. It's not an all or nothing thing.

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries.

Whether it's an assault rifle or a handgun: if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. If the Orlando shooter didn't get it from the local gun shop, he would have found a different way.

Or used a pressure cooker.

Or a fork.

Or a plastic knife.

Or maybe he would have just lit the place on fire.

joshuatrio says

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries.

It's worked damn well in Australia, the most recent and relevant example.

joshuatrio says

Whether it's an assault rifle or a handgun: if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. If the Orlando shooter didn't get it from the local gun shop, he would have found a different way.

Does that apply to nuclear weapons, land mines, grenades, armored vehicles, etc.? No. Why not? Because those things are strictly regulated.

And what's up with the logic that because some people will obtain contraband then we shouldn't make such things contraband in the first place? Why the fuck does that apply to guns and nothing else? It does not apply to drugs, cryptography, military hardware, copyright infringement, wiretapping, and thousands of other things. Why the fuck do guns get a free pass when nothing else does?

And since laws don't deter terrorists at all, then why is terrorism illegal at all? Oh, so we can prosecute the shit out of terrorists. There is no other law that people say, well people break this law so why bother having it.

Dan8267 says

That's why the entire country must be a gun-free zone. Allowing guns any place means the plague will spread. Treat guns like narcotics. Zero tolerance.

It's worked well in Mexico, it's bound to work here!

What next Dan, disarm all bordering nations? The world? You're a dictators wet dream.

joshuatrio says

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries

This is correct. What's even more insane is that the democrats refuse to take steps that will actually decrease crimes. Namely:

-stop illegal immigration into the US
-deport those here who entered illegally
-have all states adopt federal sentencing of 15 year minimum for illegal gun possession and especially for felons in possession of a gun.

Why they scream gun control left and right when that will do little to decrease gun deaths while eschewing the above named steps...you got me on that one. I don't have a clue.

Terrorists should be able to buy their weapons directly, without resorting to the black market.

I'm the NRA.

joshuatrio says

The reality is, stricter laws won't do anything. Look how well that's worked in other countries.

That's clearly not true. Stricter laws WILL do something. Of course they won't be 100% effective, but so what. Isn't saving 1 life better than saving 0 lives?

No law is 100% effective. By your logic, we should have no laws? Seriously--if someone breaks a law, that means the law is useless?

We still have traffic accidents so we should eliminate stoplights? We still have rapists so therefore we should make rape legal?

Do you see how ridiculous this logic is?

tatupu70 says

That's clearly not true. Stricter laws WILL do something. Of course they won't be 100% effective, but so what. Isn't saving 1 life better than saving 0 lives?

No law is 100% effective. By your logic, we should have no laws? Seriously--if someone breaks a law, that means the law is useless?

We still have traffic accidents so we should eliminate stoplights? We still have rapists so therefore we should make rape legal?

Do you see how ridiculous this logic is?

And by your logic, we should only drink smoothies for breakfast, lunch and dinner - due to the risk of choking from solid food.

And hell, why stop at rape, let's ban sex for fear of STD's.

Per Ironman: How are the gun laws in Chicago working out for you?

joshuatrio says

And by your logic, we should only drink smoothies for breakfast, lunch and dinner - due to the risk of choking from solid food.

And hell, why stop at rape, let's ban sex for fear of STD's.

Nope--my logic is to assess the risks and then make a decision about the risk/reward of any law. If the reduction in risk outweighs the harm from the restriction, then it's worth doing. In this case, I think the harm to society from banning AR-15s is very small.

joshuatrio says

Per Ironman: How are the gun laws in Chicago working out for you?

Fine for me. Obviously it's not difficult for criminals to obtain guns when they are legal a short distance away.

NuttBoxer says

It's worked well in Mexico, it's bound to work here!

Does Mexico have the same laws as Australia? No.

So your argument might apply if I were proposing adopting the Mexican laws. I'm not. I'm proposing adopting the Australian laws. You have no arguments to refute the effectiveness of those laws.

And to be honest, you don't give a shit if adopting Australia's gun control laws did stop all mass shootings and most violence. You simply wouldn't care. You'd rather live in a country that was dangerous but allowed you to play with guns than one that was completely safe and didn't let you play with guns. Have the balls to admit that.

The gun debate isn't about safety. We already know what works. The gun debate is about recreational shooting and feeling like your a man because you can easily kill someone. But why should I give a damn about your recreational activities that allow for mass shootings when you don't give a damn about other people's recreational activities that do not result in the deaths of innocent people?

NuttBoxer says

What next Dan, disarm all bordering nations? The world? You're a dictators wet dream.

Your statement is nonsensical bullshit. Limiting firearms is not what makes a dictatorship a dictatorship. You are a fool if you actually believe that debunked lie.

Just apply your argument to other types of arms, all of which would be protected by the Second Amendment if that amendment were actually in effect. Why hasn't your inability to plant land mines in your front lawn caused the U.S. to be taken over by Nazis? Come on, the Nazis didn't let the Jews have land mines, so the U.S. is just like Nazi Germany because it does not let citizens plant land mines on their property.

We can substitute thousands of arms everywhere you use the word gun and it shows how fucking ridiculous your arguments are especially since the Second Amendment is about arms, not just firearms. The word gun appears nowhere in the Second Amendment. Funny how no person on the pro-gun side is willing to admit or discuss that fundamental flaw in their world view.

Guns are not special. The should receive no special protection that does not apply to any other kind of arm. The reason why some arms are illegal apply to all arms based on the degree to which that arm can be used to kill people against the law.

tatupu70 says

Nope--my logic is to assess the risks and then make a decision about the risk/reward of any law. If the reduction in risk outweighs the harm from the restriction, then it's worth doing. In this case, I think the harm to society from banning AR-15s is very small.

If you are going to asses the risks, then we really should ban sex. I mean, seriously!!! **GASP** There are around 50,000 new HIV cases reported each year!!!

Didn't you say this earlier -

tatupu70 says

Of course some criminals will still be able to get assault rifles.

Then...

tatupu70 says

I think the harm to society from banning AR-15s is very small.

Uhhhhh, you do realize the AR-15 is not an assault rifle right?

tatupu70 says

Obviously it's not difficult for criminals to obtain guns when they are legal a short distance away.

Or just get them illegally.

joshuatrio says

If you are going to asses the risks, then we really should ban sex. I mean, seriously!!! **GASP** There are around 50,000 new HIV cases reported each year!!!

You forgot the other half of my sentence. Balancing it with the harm to society. Don't you think banning sex would have a pretty harmful effect on society?? Like, ending it.

joshuatrio says

Uhhhhh, you do realize the AR-15 is not an assault rifle right?

Really, that's the best you have? Notwithstanding those are clearly from two different posts--who cares?

joshuatrio says

tatupu70 says

Obviously it's not difficult for criminals to obtain guns when they are legal a short distance away.

Or just get them illegally.

It would be much more difficult to get them illegally. And unless you think laws have no deterrence value, it should keep some people from obtaining them.

tatupu70 says

You forgot the other half of my sentence. Balancing it with the harm to society. Don't you think banning sex would have a pretty harmful effect on society?? Like, ending it.

Is it though? Would you rather take a shot to the head, or be diagnosed with an incurable disease - and be subjected to an expensive assortment of drug cocktails for the rest of your life?

And how many couples actually reproduce after being diagnosed with HIV? My guess is very few.

So, put two and two together with liberal logic.

HIV infections = 5 times more common than gun murders
HIV risk > gun risk
WE MUST BAN SEX
IF WE DON'T BAN SEX, HIV WILL KILL EVERYONE ANYWAYS

tatupu70 says

Really, that's the best you have? Notwithstanding those are clearly from two different posts--who cares?

Posts yes. Posters no.

One post you're talking about criminals getting assault rifles. Later you're talking about banning AR-15's. Maybe you should clarify?

tatupu70 says

It would be much more difficult to get them illegally. And unless you think laws have no deterrence value, it should keep some people from obtaining them.

Those who want them, will get them. Period.

I'd encourage you to scroll up and read what some of the other posters have said.

With that said. I really think we should ban propane tanks. A few of those present a much greater hazard than a few non "assault rifles."

joshuatrio says

Is it though? Would you rather take a shot to the head, or be diagnosed with an incurable disease - and be subjected to an expensive assortment of drug cocktails for the rest of your life?

And how many couples actually reproduce after being diagnosed with HIV? My guess is very few.

So, put two and two together with liberal logic.

HIV infections = 5 times more common than gun murders

HIV risk > gun risk

WE MUST BAN SEX

IF WE DON'T BAN SEX, HIV WILL KILL EVERYONE ANYWAYS

You're not following. You advocated banning sex. With no sex there are no kids. With no kids, society dies. I know it's hard for conservatives to consider anything except for selfish considerations, but try.

joshuatrio says

One post you're talking about criminals getting assault rifles. Later you're talking about banning AR-15's. Maybe you should clarify?

No clarification is necessary. Does it matter if I'm talking about assault rifles or AR-15s? How does that affect the point? It's a very blurry distinction in any case.

joshuatrio says

Those who want them, will get them. Period.

I disagree. You could say the same about ANYTHING that is banned. So are you in favor of the US becoming Somalia? Are you in favor of banning any weaponry at all?

joshuatrio says

I'd encourage you to scroll up and read what some of the other posters have said.

I've read this entire thread (minus CIC, but he never has anything useful to say). What specifically are you referring to?

tatupu70 says

Which policy caused a closet homosexual to take out his frustrations on a group of gay folks

1)Withdrawal of troops from Iraq before a stable government was formed.
2)Cooperation with the Saudis to destabilize Syria using militant Islam.
3)Letting ISIS export oil to Turkey for years so they could finance their unholy regime of terror (and hopefully attack Assad). This created the ISIS monster.
4)Refuse to see or acknowledge the radical Islam problem.
5)Continue to import Muslims from countries that hate us.
6)Refuse to let the FBI investigate radical clerics or mosques that radicalize Muslim youths.
7)refuse to let the FBI investigate a gun store owner's warning about this particular Muslim asshole.

That should be enough just for starters.
The FACT is that a Muslim man committed this act of barbary while pledging allegiance to the Islamic State. He could have used a bomb instead but chose to make it more personal.

Wake the fuck up dipshit!

Quigley says

1)Withdrawal of troops from Iraq before a stable government was formed.

2)Cooperation with the Saudis to destabilize Syria using militant Islam.

3)Letting ISIS export oil to Turkey for years so they could finance their unholy regime of terror (and hopefully attack Assad). This created the ISIS monster.

4)Refuse to see or acknowledge the radical Islam problem.

5)Continue to import Muslims from countries that hate us.

6)Refuse to let the FBI investigate radical clerics or mosques that radicalize Muslim youths.

7)refuse to let the FBI investigate a gun store owner's warning about this particular Muslim asshole.

How did any of those things contribute to a gay man being embarrassed about his sexuality and taking it out on other gays?

tatupu70 says

You're not following. You advocated banning sex. With no sex there are no kids. With no kids, society dies. I know it's hard for conservatives to consider anything except for selfish considerations, but try.

Did you read what I wrote earlier about plastic utensils?

tatupu70 says

No clarification is necessary. Does it matter if I'm talking about assault rifles or AR-15s? How does that affect the point? It's a very blurry distinction in any case.

Clarify then. Are you talking about a total gun ban? Or banning AR-15's? Or just assault rifles?

It sure looks like you are talking about assault rifles... or.... AR's - which in terms of greater good - utensils are more dangerous :)

So, I really think we should ban solid foods. Straws are much safer.

tatupu70 says

I disagree.

Crack's illegal, but if you want it - you can get it. So is prostitution (in most states), but if I wanted a prostitute, why the hell would I go all the way to a legal state (like the chicago example) to get it? Point is, bad guys would still get their guns.

joshuatrio says

Did you read what I wrote earlier about plastic utensils?

Yes. I fail to see any relevance.

joshuatrio says

Clarify then. Are you talking about a total gun ban? Or banning AR-15's? Or just assault rifles?

It sure looks like you are talking about assault rifles... or.... AR's - which in terms of greater good - utensils are more dangerous :)

So, I really think we should ban solid foods. Straws are much safer.

Not a total gun ban. I'm talking about banning weapons whose harm outweighs its benefit. The comments about utensils being more dangerous than assault rifles isn't worth a reply.

joshuatrio says

Crack's illegal, but if you want it - you can get it. So is prostitution (in most states), but if I wanted a prostitute, why the hell would I go all the way to a legal state (like the chicago example) to get it? Point is, bad guys would still get their guns.

OK--so you are for removing all laws then, right? Murders happen, even with a law so get rid of the law. Rapes still happen, so get rid of the law. Bad guys still murder. Bad guys still rape. Let's get rid of all laws.

You still seem to be stuck in an all or nothing viewpoint. If you can't stop all gun violence, then any attempt is useless. Don't you see the flaw yet? Stopping 10%, while less than I'd hope, is still saving hundreds (thousands?) of lives. You don't think those thousands of lives are worth saving??

tatupu70 says

Not a total gun ban. I'm talking about banning weapons whose harm outweighs its benefit. The comments about utensils being more dangerous than assault rifles isn't worth a reply.

According to Ironman's homocide table, it is relevant. Especially if you're concerned for the greater good.

tatupu70 says

OK--so you are for removing all laws then, right? Murders happen, even with a law so get rid of the law. Rapes still happen, so get rid of the law. Bad guys still murder. Bad guys still rape. Let's get rid of all laws.

I didn't say that. I said the bad guys are still going to get their guns regardless of regulation - or laws on the books.

I believe a more effective law would be to require every household to own a firearm - and implement a castle law at the federal level. Especially for the greater good.

Since this conversation obviously stems from the Orlando shooting, one or two armed individuals in the club would have been able to take down the Islamic sack of crap in seconds/minutes from when this started. Not 3 hours.

tatupu70 says

How did any of those things contribute to a gay man being embarrassed about his sexuality and taking it out on other gays?

I see. So you're saying that it was because he was a GAY Muslim that he committed this atrocity. A normal Muslim would never shoot up a gay bar. Only the deviant and perverse GAYS could own that sort of act!
Funny, I never figured you for a homophobe...

joshuatrio says

According to Ironman's

Anything that starts with those three words is almost certainly wrong.

joshuatrio says

I believe a more effective law would be to require every household to own a firearm - and implement a castle law at the federal level. Especially for the greater good.

I think there are many examples throughout history showing this to be a very poor solution.

Quigley says

I see. So you're saying that it was because he was a GAY Muslim that he committed this atrocity. A normal Muslim would never shoot up a gay bar. Only the deviant and perverse GAYS could own that sort of act!

Funny, I never figured you for a homophobe...

Just curious--how does my statement make me a homophobe exactly?

But to answer your question--I'm saying he could have been a gay Christian and felt the same shame, pressure, and self-disgust that might cause him to snap. Religion was the problem. In this case Islam. But this wasn't a radicalized freedom fighter wanting to become a martyr.

tatupu70 says

Anything that starts with those three words is almost certainly wrong.

Actually it was a chart he posted that was from the Criminal Justice Services Information Division.

tatupu70 says

I think there are many examples throughout history showing this to be a very poor solution.

Please share those many examples.