Guns bad...case closed

[Seth]

Lies and propaganda.

[Blind groper]

Almost right, Seth

The number killed by guns in that chart is a little exaggerated. Including suicides, guns kill a bit over 20,000 Americans each year. (It varies from year to year). So saying that 200,000 were killed by guns since 2010 is not accurate. It would be more like 120,000. However, the basic theme is correct.

[Seth]

Almost right, Seth

The number killed by guns in that chart is a little exaggerated. Including suicides, guns kill a bit over 20,000 Americans each year. (It varies from year to year). So saying that 200,000 were killed by guns since 2010 is not accurate. It would be more like 120,000. However, the basic theme is correct.

It's most certainly not correct in any respect whatsoever because it's a fallacious comparison to begin with and it makes patently false claims based on propaganda and lies.

It's pure political fiction and nothing more.

One example is the false inference made by the propagandistic claim that voting against "expanded background checks" and against "a plan to prevent people on the terror watchlist from buying guns" means that "Senate Republicans cheerfully vote to increase death and suffering in the USA."

This is the epitome of political propaganda that falsely characterizes the Senate action and then falsely links it to a false propaganda opinion.

The reason the Senate voted against "expanded background checks" is because expanded background checks would have zero effect in preventing criminals or terrorists from getting guns. It will also cost taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and will have no practical effect on preventing criminals from getting guns either, so it's a waste of time and money that only infringes on the rights of the law-abiding and the only intent of putting it up in the first place is as a Democrat stalking horse and political ploy to persuade stupid, ignorant people, like the people who produced and those who distribute and believe the graphic, that "doing something", which always means something entirely ineffective at solving the actual problem and is intended only and solely to advance the cause of gun bans, is an appropriate response to every shooting that takes place. It's not, and the Republicans aren't going to play that political game.

Second, the reason the Senate voted against the "No-fly" list idea is because there are NO due process checks and balances for citizens who get wrongfully put on the list...like Teddy Kennedy. There is no legal recourse or appeal available and there is no due process standard of evidence required to even put someone on the watchlist, which can be done at the behest of a politician without a shred of probable cause. Therefore, the Republicans declined to take up this asinine suggestion as a protection of the civil rights of every citizen of the US, each of whom has a right to confront their accusers and be offered due process before their fundamental rights, which include life, liberty and gun ownership, are infringed.

And this graphic is a classic example of how Marxist propaganda persuades useful idiots using false claims and made-up "facts."

[Tero]

[Seth]

deleted horseshit propaganda...

Ah yes, the "If we can't control guns, we can control ammunition and achieve the same thing" canard.

Sorry, but the right to keep and bear arms happens to include ammunition for firearms because the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect a citizen's right to keep and bear arms that are effective and usable for their intended purposes. And to remain "well regulated" citizens must practice with their firearms, which requires substantial amounts of ammunition.

Besides, ammunition registration and ID schemes have been attempted before, many times, and they fail utterly each and every time at reducing criminal use of firearms, not to mention costing taxpayers millions in pointless expenses to keep the records, which provide no useful information at all to law enforcement.

Oh, and there's also reloading, which means that it's simply impossible for the government to track such things effectively.

You persist with the idiotic (though exceedingly common) anti-gun arguments that attempting to control the lawful possession of firearms is somehow going to prevent criminals from getting and using guns, or, for that matter, nutcases or terrorists from doing the same. But since everything a criminal, nutcase or terrorist does with a firearm is already illegal, right down to possessing one single round of ammunition, it should be clear to any person with even a microscopic amount of brain matter that gun control laws only control the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens, not criminals, nutcases or terrorists, and therefore more gun control is not going to do anything to solve the problem of criminals, nutcases or terrorists using firearms.

The fact that you know this full well and persist with your propaganda proves beyond any doubt that your intent to ban guns has nothing to do with criminals, nutcases or terrorists but is in fact a treasonous attempt to violate the Constitution and the civil rights of all law-abiding citizens by disarming them, which gives aid and comfort to our enemies, and therefore you should be arrested for treason, tried and imprisoned for no less than five years, if not hung by the neck until dead, as should every other enemy propagandist in the US.

[Tero]

Obviously the current system does not keep guns from terrorists. They'll be shopping at Wal Mart to take guns to France soon.

The constitution does not say anything about training. If I give you a revolver and 6 bullets, you are armed as far as I'm concerned. I you shoot 6 bullets, I'll make you write down where you defended yourself and when. Then you get 6 more. With your revolver you are as well armed as the musket owner of 1790. Better.

I'll throw in a cannon and two cannnonballs if you comply with my new rules.

For practice, you get an air rifle.

[Seth]

Obviously the current system does not keep guns from terrorists.

"The system" has never been able to do so, something that the Democrats who proposed it knew full well. It's just like TSA searches, it's merely security theater and a "feel good" for anti-gunners.

They'll be shopping at Wal Mart to take guns to France soon.

That's France's problem.

The constitution does not say anything about training.

Indeed. So what? Congress does that, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program exists, as part of which Congress has authorized the sale of surplus military firearms to civilians who participate in that training program.

If I give you a revolver and 6 bullets, you are armed as far as I'm concerned.

Who gives a fuck what you think? Not me and not any other gun owner.

I you shoot 6 bullets, I'll make you write down where you defended yourself and when.

And I'll tell you to go fuck yourself and manufacture 6000 more.

Then you get 6 more. With your revolver you are as well armed as the musket owner of 1790. Better.

I'll throw in a cannon and two cannnonballs if you comply with my new rules.

For practice, you get an air rifle.

Good luck with that, you're going to need it.

[Tero]

We'll get that amendment going first.

28 Delete 2nd
29: states shall have jurisdiction over gun rights on state land. Military bases and war zones and disaster areas fall under federal control.
(Needs more wording to authorize federal control of weapons traveling from state to state)

[Seth]

We'll get that amendment going first.

28 Delete 2nd
29: states shall have jurisdiction over gun rights on state land. Military bases and war zones and disaster areas fall under federal control.
(Needs more wording to authorize federal control of weapons traveling from state to state)

You can try. That's your right. I'm not worried that you will succeed, because even if you do, you will ultimately fail because we have the guns and you don't, and that's WHY we have the guns.

[Tero]

We won't overrule the states in the US. They will be persuaded to put in gun controls voluntarily. We will use tax breaks and other incentives.

[Seth]

We won't overrule the states in the US. They will be persuaded to put in gun controls voluntarily. We will use tax breaks and other incentives.

I have an incentive for you, it's right here next to seven of it's brothers just waiting to incentivize you to fuck off if you try to take our guns. You see, you can pass any law you want but you still have to go out and collect the guns, which is rather more difficult than just passing a law, as your minions (because gun-banners are always too cowardly to do it themselves) will quickly discover when they attempt it.

And even supposing that your jackbooted thugs did actually show up at my door, what on earth makes you think that my guns are where they can find them and seize them. At best they'll get two of them and I'll go re-arm.

So, again, I'm not losing sleep over your ideas.

[Tero]

Not just my ideas. Assault weapons or whatever label you want, they will go first.

The politicians will give states and gun owners incentives. You will pay more and more for keeping your guns. Not as fines but tax breaks you cannot use. The next generation after you will not be used to owning 8 guns or more. Only one. Hunting and useful gun ownership will remain. For practical reasons. We don't have the funds to keep wildlife habitat without hunters and land owners' support.

[Seth]

Not just my ideas. Assault weapons or whatever label you want, they will go first.

If you want them, come and take them. Not your minions, you, personally. Or are you too cowardly to walk the walk?

The politicians will give states and gun owners incentives. You will pay more and more for keeping your guns. Not as fines but tax breaks you cannot use. The next generation after you will not be used to owning 8 guns or more. Only one. Hunting and useful gun ownership will remain. For practical reasons. We don't have the funds to keep wildlife habitat without hunters and land owners' support.

Keep living in your fantasy if you like, but it's not gonna happen.

[Blind groper]

It is easily possible to pass laws that mostly keep guns out of criminal hands. 23 out of 24 western developed nations have already done it, very successfully. The method is tried and proven. It is just that corrupt law makers in the USA, who receive money from gun manufacturers, are bribed too well to do the right and proper thing.

As I pointed out in another thread, my country has one quarter the per capita rate of violent crime compared to the USA, and less than that in murder rate. Australia is even less violent than NZ. All those guns in the USA do not reduce violent crime. They increase it.

[Tero]

States like California and Massachusetts will go for it and the Supremes will not stop them. In 20 years Seth will be stuck in Colorado to enjoy his guns at the current level.