194 replies to this topic

[tsukiji]

Since much of our populace seems susceptible to making decisions that are ill-informed and based on neither experience nor foresight (or even, unfortunately hindsight which is not suprising given the historical tendency for history to repeat itself), perhaps the experience of a third party (Australia) will shed some light on some of the immediate implications of gun control:



And further still, for those in our relatively young country who are not convinced on the need for maintenance of basic rights, the summation at the end is food for thought as our rights continue to be eroded away by big money and big government (btw, I think it's embarrasing to be reminded of the critical value our rights provide us by naturalized citizens; for those of us who were born and raised here who would forego our rights, shame on us):

[tsukiji]

Haha. They showed an excerpt of the testimony on gun control in DC.

Stupid Senator or whatever (don't know who it was).

Basically, the NRA indicated that background checks will not be effective in preventing criminals from purchasing guns because they won't go buy guns where background checks are required.

The idiot Senator thought he was so smart in responding that, in effect, that will stop criminals from purchasing guns. Background checks will stop criminals from buying guns. He was ridiculing the NRA for not understanding this point.


Hahahaha. Idiot. This is the problem with people who think gun control is effective. CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THE LAW. THEY DON'T BUY GUNS IN STORES!!!!! THEY BUY WHATEVER THEY WANT!!!!! Criminals want as much gun control and bans as possible because they will have to worry less about armed defenses when they commit their crimes.

And lastly, stupid idiotic senator -- the 2nd Amendment isn't really about law abiding citizens defending against criminals. It's about the government. Read the frickin Bill of Rights, you're a frickin Senator (at least in name).

I hope there is a secession. I would move there. Live free or die.

[tsukiji]

Worthwhile reading: Why we need to protect the the SA:

http://asmdss.com/pa...-amendment.html

[supermom]

[caligirlz]

As is hypocrisy on the right!!

[tsukiji]

NY residents are starting to stand up to the irresponsible politicians who have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the USC/BoR.

[FDNY343]

As is hypocrisy on the right!!

????????????? I'd like to see an example and I promise for every one you point out I can get two on the libs to counter it......

[tsukiji]

Sorry, this is slightly off topic.

Here's a 13 year old demonstrating her Second Amendment skills in a 3-gun (rifle, shotgun, handgun) match.



I wonder what the village idiot Piers would say if he saw this.

[The Average Joe]

She's awesome. If you look at her FB page, there are a few other videos. In one, she has a dead round, and before you realize what has happened, she clears the round and continues. Pretty amazing. And BTW, the full auto she uses at the beginning cannot be bought "off the shelf" by just anyone. It requires lengthy and expensive licensing and OK from the DOJ.
And Cali, I would like you to explain the hypocrisy of the right re: this topic.

Off topic, I had the pleasure of a friend taking me out on some private property today to shoot a small selection of his firearms. What...a... blast! We never did get to the clays as we had too much fun with the 7 different caliber rifles and pistols... If only we could have found some zombie Feinstein targets lol.

[supermom]

I may be wrong but I believe Cali was referring to the generalized bias trolling of some on this forum that insist on blanket statements and labels

[tsukiji]

And BTW, the full auto she uses at the beginning cannot be bought "off the shelf" by just anyone. It requires lengthy and expensive licensing and OK from the DOJ.

Good point and I should have pointed this out given this is CA where an ergonomic collapsible stock is evil and enables mass shootings.

[tsukiji]

Thanks. I find these veins of commentary humourous as well. It show by analogy just how illogical gun control / ban advocates are.

Of a more somber note, if a law abiding citizen is harmed because of a tactical disadvantage (10 round mags, gun rosters, magazine lockouts, bullet buttons, inability to LTC, etc) against a criminal (who not only should not be commiting the act of crime, but is also not complying to these absurd laws and is using standard capacity magazines, etc), all of those who support these laws should be considered just as responsible for the harm as the criminal. If you're not supportive of law abiding citizens, then you're at least implicitly supporting criminals.

When someone supports gun laws like these, that person is not inhibiting criminals (a criminal should not be doing the act of crime to begin with. Known criminals aren't supposed to possess a gun in the first place. 10 round mags, mag lock, LTC laws, etc are meaningless to them) but rather is an accessory in harming his neighbor.

In other words, a person who possess a gun under the rights confirmed (not provided, but confirmed that the government shall not infringe) by the 2nd Amendment is not a criminal. But those who would restrict those rights should be morally considered criminals should a law abiding person suffer a violent crime. But for these laws, the law abiding person may not have come to be harmed.

[supermom]

Tsukiji- so a neighbor who doesn't believe in free medical care is a criminal because he voted against going condoms to rapists in the prisons? Or worse, refused medical transparency of any prisoners after being released from prison. After all, we should know if someone has aids, right?-- Just in case they get into a relationship and "don't" tell the partner?

How about stop blaming people or making anyone "pay" for the crime- except the actual person who committed the crime?