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.