The Conservative Case For Gun Control

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Haha...just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean it doesn't get me anywhere.

     


    Write that out on a post-it note, stick it on a monitor, and read it to yourself three times before your next declaration of "whoosh" or "facepalm"



    nice try....

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    When the left starts talking about doing background checks of everyone who exercise their right to vote, I'll start listening to the argument about needing background checks to own a gun.

    Check Voters Before Gun Owners!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Ok, so why is an AR-15 not a "legitimate self-defense gun"? If an intruder comes into ones home can a AR-15 not work to do the job of defending ones self? Yes or No



     

    Unlike a handgun, that is the only place an AR-15 can be used in self-defense. They are way too cumbersome to lug around in public (and I'm pretty sure that would get you some police attention pronto).

    THAT'S your argument? Thanks for proving my point. Would't a shotgun be too cumbersome to carry around in public also? Plus you know damn well a shotgun/rifle wouldn't ever be an option for carrying in public. Many people carry handgun in public and also have a rifle/shotgun for home defense. Just a dumb argument on your point. Hope your clients get better effort than that

    And a shotgun is still a better bet for home defense.

    how so?

    An AR-15 is a military assault weapon designed to allow a soldier to kill many enemies quickly. It simply has no fully automatic setting. (And of course, soldiers typically do not use full-auto because you burn your ammo within seconds).

    And I agree with this. You should have went this this point and only this  point. You'd have done better.

     

    Questions like "can I find a single instance of hanguns killing more people" and "does it work for self-defense" don't get you anywhere near the finish line.

    A grenade can be used for self-defense, but for obvious reasons, no one is arguing that it should be available for that reason.

    The question is destructive power vs. necessity of legality.




     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    gun registration in the hands of the government is far more dangerous than no registration at all....i trust americans first.....history is on my side...just ask 3 million murdered Jews and 100,000 recently murdered Syrians...

    you cant take something away from someone unless you know where to look...common sense...Bloomberg is taking away donuts, Coca Cola,.... Concord took away water and it goes on and on.....to think a gun registration wouldn't lead to confiscation is naive.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Just a dumb argument on your point. Hope your clients get better effort than that You should have went this this point and only this  point. You'd have done better.

     


    Playing teacher now?

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Haha...just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean it doesn't get me anywhere. 

     



    Just trying to help you man.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    gun registration in the hands of the government is far more dangerous than no registration at all....i trust americans first.....history is on my side...just ask 3 million murdered Jews and 100,000 recently murdered Syrians...

    you cant take something away from someone unless you know where to look...common sense...Bloomberg is taking away donuts, Coca Cola,.... Concord took away water and it goes on and on.....to think a gun registration wouldn't lead to confiscation is naive.

     



    The government confiscated guns in New Orleans during Katrina, didn't it?

    on a related note, why doesn't the government confiscate guns in Chicago?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    gun registration in the hands of the government is far more dangerous than no registration at all....i trust americans first.....history is on my side...just ask 3 million murdered Jews and 100,000 recently murdered Syrians...

    you cant take something away from someone unless you know where to look...common sense...Bloomberg is taking away donuts, Coca Cola,.... Concord took away water and it goes on and on.....to think a gun registration wouldn't lead to confiscation is naive.

     



    We don't live in Nazi Germany or the dctatorship of Syria. Wise up.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    If the argument of banning is based on the killing it can do then shouldn't we be asking for 9mm's to be banned?



    Things like handguns and shotguns are perfected for self-defense uses. They're at the core of the 2nd Amd. right to bear arms. So no, they shouldn't be banned.

     

    There is little in the way of legitimate self-defense purposes in an AR-15. Not unless you anticipate a zombie apocalypse. There simply is no civilian need for them. Balance that against the possibility of reduced deaths per shooting, and one may conclude that they should be banned.


    That's all. (And that's why waving VA around doesn't get you anywhere.)



    Sure there are 2nd amendment uses for AR15's or similar weapons.  how about for self protection in Chicago, where similar weapons are in the hands of criminals? the standard is that I am allowed arms to match the threat, is it not?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    yes the republicans are to blame..........

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that a proposed assault weapons ban won't be part of a gun control bill the Senate plans to debate next month, the sponsor of the ban said Tuesday, a decision that means the ban stands little chance of survival.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    gun registration in the hands of the government is far more dangerous than no registration at all....i trust americans first.....history is on my side...just ask 3 million murdered Jews and 100,000 recently murdered Syrians...

    you cant take something away from someone unless you know where to look...common sense...Bloomberg is taking away donuts, Coca Cola,.... Concord took away water and it goes on and on.....to think a gun registration wouldn't lead to confiscation is naive.

     

     



    We don't live in Nazi Germany or the dctatorship of Syria. Wise up.

     



    you are right.....we don;t live in Nazi Germany....do you know how it became Nazi Germany????  They disarmed any chance of opposition....first......the rest was easy.

    Thinking that we are so special and so insulated from bad things happening to us is very naive....

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    Such a "gotcha" moment...

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    do you know how it became Nazi Germany????  They disarmed any chance of opposition




     

     

    Hitler did not rise to power by confiscating guns.

    He rose to power because he postured as a strong man who made Germans feel strong about themselves again, and they got behind him because they were desparate to get out of the mess the Versailles treaty left them in. They looked the other way - with some historically noted exceptions - as he turned against the Jews.

    They were most certainly not prevented from rising against him by a lack of weapons. They didn't want to rise against him.

     

    But thanks for posting this utterly asinine diahhrea. You reminded me to put you on ignore.

    hitler didn't enact gun control?

    Hitler only confiscated guns from the Jews and other oppressed members of German society, and after confiscating their guns, he killed them.

    is that your point? hardly speaks in favor of gun control, disarming those who need it most.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    A ban on nearly 160 specific types of semiautomatic weapons and rifles was one of the four major parts of President Barack Obama's plan to curtail gun violence in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting.

     

    Except that handguns are used in majority of gun violence. This is the issue I have with the ban...the reasons are disingenuous. If it's REALLY due to gun violence then shouldn't handguns be banned since those are used in majority of gun violence??? 

    Look, ban "assault weapons" but don't pi55 on my head and tell me it's raining by telling me it's to "curtail gun violence". That's pure political bullsh!t. 

     

    WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) grew defensive Tuesday when pressed on his efforts to craft a gun control package, having decided this week not to include a ban on assault weapons in the legislation.

     

    Somehow the Repubs will get blamed for Reid not including a ban on assault weapons in the legislation.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    gun registration in the hands of the government is far more dangerous than no registration at all....i trust americans first.....history is on my side...just ask 3 million murdered Jews and 100,000 recently murdered Syrians...

    you cant take something away from someone unless you know where to look...common sense...Bloomberg is taking away donuts, Coca Cola,.... Concord took away water and it goes on and on.....to think a gun registration wouldn't lead to confiscation is naive.

     

     



    We don't live in Nazi Germany or the dctatorship of Syria. Wise up.

     

     



    you are right.....we don;t live in Nazi Germany....do you know how it became Nazi Germany????  They disarmed any chance of opposition....first......the rest was easy.

     

    Thinking that we are so special and so insulated from bad things happening to us is very naive....

     

     



    No.  It became Nazi Germany when they elected Nazis into office.  The traditonal elites (militay and industrial) were afraid of chaos and chose a "conservative" to insure law and order.  Our democratic traditions run much deeper than that place.  It is a very bad comparison.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    An emotional Michael Moore berated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev. last night for the decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban in the Democratic gun control bill.

     

    The liberal filmmaker was a guest of CNN’s Piers Morgan last night, criticizing the senior Democrat with rhetoric usually reserved for former President George W. Bush.

     

    “This is just going to keep going on and on and on, until people rise up,” Moore insisted. “Until people take Harry Reid by the collar and say, ‘Who the hell do you think you are, this is our country Harry Reid.’

     

    “He should be ashamed of himself,” Morgan agreed.

    Moore asserted that Reid would act differently “if a man with an assault weapon killed Harry Reid’s grandchildren,”



    Apparently Morgan and Moore don't realize that Reid can currently only get about 40 votes for this bill. So it's not exactly Reid's fault. Those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    Guns DO NOT kill people any more than cars, motorcycles, alcohol and cigarettes do

    PEOPLE who misuse and/or abuse them kill people or themselves

    Inanimate objects are not the problem

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    An emotional Michael Moore berated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev. last night for the decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban in the Democratic gun control bill.

     

    The liberal filmmaker was a guest of CNN’s Piers Morgan last night, criticizing the senior Democrat with rhetoric usually reserved for former President George W. Bush.

     

    “This is just going to keep going on and on and on, until people rise up,” Moore insisted. “Until people take Harry Reid by the collar and say, ‘Who the hell do you think you are, this is our country Harry Reid.’

     

    “He should be ashamed of himself,” Morgan agreed.

    Moore asserted that Reid would act differently “if a man with an assault weapon killed Harry Reid’s grandchildren,”

     



    Apparently Morgan and Moore don't realize that Reid can currently only get about 40 votes for this bill. So it's not exactly Reid's fault. Those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill.

     



    Actually it sounds like most Dems would favor it.  But I doubt that any Republican would.  Thus by the numbers it is a dead issue.  But it would be nice to see an actual vote so we can see clearly who is for and against this measure. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    An emotional Michael Moore berated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev. last night for the decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban in the Democratic gun control bill.

     

    The liberal filmmaker was a guest of CNN’s Piers Morgan last night, criticizing the senior Democrat with rhetoric usually reserved for former President George W. Bush.

     

    “This is just going to keep going on and on and on, until people rise up,” Moore insisted. “Until people take Harry Reid by the collar and say, ‘Who the hell do you think you are, this is our country Harry Reid.’

     

    “He should be ashamed of himself,” Morgan agreed.

    Moore asserted that Reid would act differently “if a man with an assault weapon killed Harry Reid’s grandchildren,”

     



    Apparently Morgan and Moore don't realize that Reid can currently only get about 40 votes for this bill. So it's not exactly Reid's fault. Those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill.

     

     



    Actually it sounds like most Dems would favor it.  But I doubt that any Republican would.  Thus by the numbers it is a dead issue.  But it would be nice to see an actual vote so we can see clearly who is for and against this measure. 

     



    Right....but that still doesn't change the fact that those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill. Forty votes isn't enough so while "most dems favoring it" is peachy and all...it does nothing to get it passed. We've been told it's the Repubs that are against it...apparently not...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Guns DO NOT kill people and more than cars, motorcycles, alcohol and cigarettes do

    PEOPLE who misuse and/or abuse them kill people or themselves

    Inanimate objects are not the problem



    Repeating this stupid refrain is just stupid.  

    The kids were killed in Newtown in five minutes.  The killer reloaded four times with his thirty round clips. A lesser gun with smaller clips could have saved some lives that day.  Other countries don't accept these guns and they don't have these kinds of massacres.  And you can't punish the killer in Newtown: he is dead.  Passively accepting massacres of this nature is immoral.  Pretending that there is no connection between this killing and the weapon is dishonest.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    An emotional Michael Moore berated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev. last night for the decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban in the Democratic gun control bill.

     

    The liberal filmmaker was a guest of CNN’s Piers Morgan last night, criticizing the senior Democrat with rhetoric usually reserved for former President George W. Bush.

     

    “This is just going to keep going on and on and on, until people rise up,” Moore insisted. “Until people take Harry Reid by the collar and say, ‘Who the hell do you think you are, this is our country Harry Reid.’

     

    “He should be ashamed of himself,” Morgan agreed.

    Moore asserted that Reid would act differently “if a man with an assault weapon killed Harry Reid’s grandchildren,”

     



    Apparently Morgan and Moore don't realize that Reid can currently only get about 40 votes for this bill. So it's not exactly Reid's fault. Those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill.

     

     



    Actually it sounds like most Dems would favor it.  But I doubt that any Republican would.  Thus by the numbers it is a dead issue.  But it would be nice to see an actual vote so we can see clearly who is for and against this measure. 

     

     



    Right....but that still doesn't change the fact that those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill. Forty votes isn't enough so while "most dems favoring it" is peachy and all...it does nothing to get it passed. We've been told it's the Repubs that are against it...apparently not...

     



    Actually the Republicans are clearly against it and a minority of Democrats have joined them.  So it CLEAR to the objective viewer that the G.O.P. is against this type of gun control.  Whether they will accept any gun control is still up in the air, but expanding the regulation of guns is clearly is opposed by Republicans (and supported by Democrats overall).  But you don't like to focus on conservative failings...

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    Guns DO NOT kill people and more than cars, motorcycles, alcohol and cigarettes do

    PEOPLE who misuse and/or abuse them kill people or themselves

    Inanimate objects are not the problem

     



    Repeating this stupid refrain is just stupid.  

     

    The kids were killed in Newtown in five minutes.  The killer reloaded four times with his thirty round clips. A lesser gun with smaller clips could have saved some lives that day.  

    You don't know that. Again, V Tech shooter killed THIRTY-THREE with a 9mm handgun that had 10 round magazines. Yes, you read correctly....10 round mags. 

    At close range such as Newtown...a 9mm with five 10-round mags could have killed the same amount. Dropping a mag and inserting another one takes all of 2-3 seconds at most.

     

     

    Other countries don't accept these guns and they don't have these kinds of massacres.

     

    Many countries have NO guns. You're comparing apples and oranges. Also, MAJORITY of massacres in the US have been carried out with non-assault weapons. So to say that other countries don't have massacres because they don't have assault weapons is disingenuous at best. 

     

     And you can't punish the killer in Newtown: he is dead.  Passively accepting massacres of this nature is immoral.  Pretending that there is no connection between this killing and the weapon is dishonest.

     

    So again, if the banning of assault weapons is BECAUSE of the massacres then why not call for handguns to be banned? Handguns have been used in 39 shooting sprees...assault weapons have been used in 15. 




     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    An emotional Michael Moore berated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev. last night for the decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban in the Democratic gun control bill.

     

    The liberal filmmaker was a guest of CNN’s Piers Morgan last night, criticizing the senior Democrat with rhetoric usually reserved for former President George W. Bush.

     

    “This is just going to keep going on and on and on, until people rise up,” Moore insisted. “Until people take Harry Reid by the collar and say, ‘Who the hell do you think you are, this is our country Harry Reid.’

     

    “He should be ashamed of himself,” Morgan agreed.

    Moore asserted that Reid would act differently “if a man with an assault weapon killed Harry Reid’s grandchildren,”

     



    Apparently Morgan and Moore don't realize that Reid can currently only get about 40 votes for this bill. So it's not exactly Reid's fault. Those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill.

     

     



    Actually it sounds like most Dems would favor it.  But I doubt that any Republican would.  Thus by the numbers it is a dead issue.  But it would be nice to see an actual vote so we can see clearly who is for and against this measure. 

     

     



    Right....but that still doesn't change the fact that those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill. Forty votes isn't enough so while "most dems favoring it" is peachy and all...it does nothing to get it passed. We've been told it's the Repubs that are against it...apparently not...

     

     



    Actually the Republicans are clearly against it and a minority of Democrats have joined them.  So it CLEAR to the objective viewer that the G.O.P. is against this type of gun control.  Whether they will accept any gun control is still up in the air, but expanding the regulation of guns is clearly is opposed by Republicans (and supported by Democrats overall).  But you don't like to focus on conservative failings...

     



    You're missing the point. The Left has stated Repubs are against it. But that's not entirely true is it? Sorry if this is an inconvenience for you.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share