U.S. gun lobby slams anti-gun 'elites' after Florida school massacre

[DM07]

Just some random thoughts: 

- the law abiding citizens need guns, to stand up to a government, which turns eventually dictatorial.

Okay...so the government has flying robots, that make it rain fire from the sky!

Good luck to Jim-Bob, defending himself!

- the law abiding citizens need guns to defend their home and family from a potential home invasion.

I don't have the stats, but i think there are 300 Million Americans and 10.000 home-invasions every year...which means Jim-Bob has a bigger chance to be hit by lightning, while taking a $4!t!

- a hammer/ knife/ car etc ad infinitum can be used as a weapon, if some deranged lunatic so wishes.

Please, Jim- Bob...admit, that a rifle is a bit more effective than a box- cutter, if you are on the 34th floor of a hotel in Vegas and want to reek carnage on a concert on the square below you.

- I am from Germany! Strict gun- laws! Still I have the right to vote, to express my opinion in speech, writing or through the medium of dance, if I so wish to.

'Muuuuurica is NOT an iota better in any of those regards!

Germans, Danes, Sweds, Canadians, Australians etc have all kinds of freedoms and rights and if you do not know that or can not accept it, you are way too stupid to have a conversation with an adult!

- Last but not least: please...someone...walk up to LaPierre and hit him in his stupid face!

[joecoolfrog]

7 hours ago, Time Traveller said:

It was so close, you almost had me agreeing on the semi-automatic ban, until I saw you say that UK & Australia "are still free nations". Then laughter got the better of me.....for sake of amusement, what freedoms still exist in those countries? 

Exactly the same freedoms as the USA but without the annual cull of school children.

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you calling the founding fathers stupid?

Why would you ask such a question?  A document written some 200+ years ago may be fine for that time period, but completely out-of-touch today.  It doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers were stupid.  They were right about a great many things, such as the 1st Amendment.  But there were things that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, such as cyber security, environmental protection, access to healthcare, US debt, etc., and yes, the proliferation of firearms which are resulting in innocent Americans being slaughtered. 

[mike324]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

Do you know why he rescinded Obama's broad brush law on mental ill possessing guns? 

because not all people with mental illness are violent? is that what you are getting to? if so I agree, but the law was going in a right direction, just needs to be more specific

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Pangsilathong said:

 

I have been eligible to vote for 37 years and never enrolled, no fines.

 The comment, post #19  was talking about freedoms in voting in Australia and GB. Voting is compulsory in Australia. Failure to vote at a federal election without a valid and sufficient reason is an offence under section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. You are required to pay the $20 penalty.

[ThaiFelix]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

 The comment, post #19  was talking about freedoms in voting in Australia and GB. Voting is compulsory in Australia. Failure to vote at a federal election without a valid and sufficient reason is an offence under section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. You are required to pay the $20 penalty.

Correct.

[joecoolfrog]

Damn those ' European Socialists ' who think that childrens lives are more important than the right to own weapons of mass destruction....damn them !

[Becker]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm calling you on that question. Go bait someone else. 

You're calling me?? It's a simple straightforward question but (surprise, surprise) you're totally unable to answer it so resort to childish deflections.

Lame...very very lame.

 

Again:

"Where do you draw the line regarding which weapons should be allowed for use by private citizens?"

[riclag]

12 minutes ago, mike324 said:

because not all people with mental illness are violent? is that what you are getting to? if so I agree, but the law was going in a right direction, just needs to be more specific

 Everyone has rights in America even some who aren't citizens of the USA,In this case ,The very liberal organization ACLU complained Obama's law was far reaching and it violated a persons right to  Due process of the law .PT changed that.(" just needs to be more specific" ,I agree)

[jvs]

It may be a little bit of topic but i have a question i would really like answered by people who have guns for self protection.It is an honest question and i would like an honest response from responsible gun owners.

I think we can all agree that driving a car in the US is not a right but a privelige.

You abuse that and your license is taken away from you.

One of the things That will do that is drinking while under the influence of alcohol.When you are over the legal limit and you get stopped or involved in some kind of accident you will be arrested .

Now the question,when you are at home do you drink alcohol?How much?What is the legal limit to still be allowed to use your gun in case of a break in?If you are over the driving limit should you still be allowed to handle your gun?Does this mean you have to be sober all of the time in order to handle a dangerous weapon like a gun?What does the law say about that?

Please this is something i would really like to know.

[rudi49jr]

46 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. He never ever said the Romans had no right to bear arms. 

What he did say was that if a Roman required him to carry the soldier's arms, to carry them another mile.

Jesus was not a liberal pacifist.

‘Jesus was not a liberal pacifist.’

 

Maybe not, but a Roman soldier’s arms don’t really compare to semi automatic assault weapons, do they? Or do you think Jesus would approve of ordinary citizens being allowed to own assault weapons? 

 

[riclag]

22 minutes ago, jvs said:

It may be a little bit of topic but i have a question i would really like answered by people who have guns for self protection.It is an honest question and i would like an honest response from responsible gun owners.

I think we can all agree that driving a car in the US is not a right but a privelige.

You abuse that and your license is taken away from you.

One of the things That will do that is drinking while under the influence of alcohol.When you are over the legal limit and you get stopped or involved in some kind of accident you will be arrested .

Now the question,when you are at home do you drink alcohol?How much?What is the legal limit to still be allowed to use your gun in case of a break in?If you are over the driving limit should you still be allowed to handle your gun?Does this mean you have to be sober all of the time in order to handle a dangerous weapon like a gun?What does the law say about that?

Please this is something i would really like to know.

Google it! to many hypothetical's  

Edited February 23, 2018 by riclag

[jvs]

44 minutes ago, riclag said:

Google it! to many hypothetical's  

I would really like to hear from someone here.

[Stocky]

4 hours ago, lucjoker said:

If everybody ,on the  world would be armed,

fraudulent politicians would not last long ,violant idiots would not live long .....

Time for the helpless good people to protect themselves , it is stupid to think police is going to protect you.They can't be there in time.

Also a lot of money can be saved ,money they spend on defending proven criminals ......

No criminal will walk out because of juristic mistakes ,from now on the guy who makes these mistakes will get the punishment of the criminal he let go.

greetings

Solomon

Yeah, roll on the Max Mad - Zombie apocalypse.

 

Someone asked if they're calling the founding fathers stupid, no, but their offspring clearly are!

[Kiwiken]

12 hours ago, JAG said:

It is my understanding, that the "second ammendment" was enacted to allow for a militia to exist to defend the nascent republic from the various threats it faced in its early years, rather than to allow people to own military assault rifles. I understand hunting (don't do it myself), I understand target shooting as a sport. AR15 rifles and the like are weapons designed to put down a lot of fire, to kill people in large numbers. There is no sporting reason whatsoever for owning such a weapon.

Banning them would have no effect upon "individual freedoms" other than the right to slaughter children because you are pissed off with something. It would have no effect upon sporting activities. Mr LaPierre is barking at the moon.

As for arming teachers! Dear God...

I understand peoples dislike and inability to understand those who wish to own AR15, AK's , FN's etc type of military rifles. I personally believe that if you can show you are of good character and meet the Security requirements to own such firearms . Then you should be allowed to have them.

I personally love firearms and shooting them. I dislike war intensely and certainly think a firearm is the last thing I would use to defend my Family.

I know people think owning such rapid fire weapons should be banned altogether but it is like people who like Souped up vehicles, these too in the wrong hands are deadly, Any vehicle or weapon can be used for mass mayhem. Even in my own Country I believe Firearms are over regulated. But I also see the other side of the coin.

If you ban anything remember it will never stop those who have disregard for the law Acquiring such things

Even in NZ's tightly regulated Society full Military automatic weapons turn up from time to time.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Kiwiken said:

...

Even in NZ's tightly regulated Society full Military automatic weapons turn up from time to time.

From time to time?

Oh well.  

Everywhere.

Not fine.

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, Berkshire said:

No US politician dare go against the NRA....least of all this guy.

Particularly when the NRA put $33 million in his piggy bank leading up to the '16 election which he cheated to win.  How much of that $33 million went to pay off loose women with giant silicone tits?  Regardless of whether it's $280,000 or 2 million, .....Trump still had a lot of lucre left over - perhaps to pay for the STD's he passed on to his wife (Trump famously refuses to use condoms).  Poor Melania.

[boomerangutang]

35 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

I understand peoples dislike and inability to understand those who wish to own AR15, AK's , FN's etc type of military rifles. I personally believe that if you can show you are of good character and meet the Security requirements to own such firearms . Then you should be allowed to have them.

I personally love firearms and shooting them. I dislike war intensely and certainly think a firearm is the last thing I would use to defend my Family.

I know people think owning such rapid fire weapons should be banned altogether but it is like people who like Souped up vehicles, these too in the wrong hands are deadly, Any vehicle or weapon can be used for mass mayhem. Even in my own Country I believe Firearms are over regulated. But I also see the other side of the coin.

If you ban anything remember it will never stop those who have disregard for the law Acquiring such things

Even in NZ's tightly regulated Society full Military automatic weapons turn up from time to time.

I don't know whether there are rednecks in NZ, but I know for sure there are millions in the US.  I used to reside in the US, and more than once I've had rednecks point loaded guns at me.  Some of the scenarios:   

>>>  stopped to look in a shop window to see what time the clock showed

>>>  parked my car for a few minutes on the side of a road, to talk on a cell phone.

>>>  was hiking in a wilderness area and strayed toward a fence.

>>>  brought a lost kid home to his parents' house. 

 

Rednecks live their lives on a drunken hair-trigger - always eager to grab their guns and show how tough they are.  In the US, the sucker punch is adulated, as is the 'shoot first, ask questions later' adage.  Americans think that guns make them tougher, ....more like John Wayne.   After all, that's how they commandeered all that territory west of the Mississippi river ....shooting injuns.

[IAMHERE]

'Assault Rifle' 'Military weapon' ?  Heck, if the common ordinary American didn't have a gun as good as a Redcoat Regular the Revolution would have been lost. Back then the American Minutemen did have military type rifles. The framers of the 2nd amendment wanted every American to have the chance to keep their government from becoming tyarnnical. A small number of people dying so that all can remain free has always been the price of Liberty. Fear the Federal Government, not a few random crazies.

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think the Oval Office is the weakest link, not because it is a gun-free zone but instead because the one who can be found there has only partially developed mind that lacks reasoning abilities. A mind that is further crippled by being obsessed with social media every minute of the day from the time they wake up in the morning till the moment they fall asleep at night. I don't think any of us would recognize Oval Office conduct as it exists today compared to what we have known.

 

If the all those who had ever inhabited the Oval Office had to the power to change the Constitution I'm sure they would have, and in self serving ways I'm sure. But a humorous rejoinder all the same.

Edited February 23, 2018 by lannarebirth

[Slip]

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

'Assault Rifle' 'Military weapon' ?  Heck, if the common ordinary American didn't have a gun as good as a Redcoat Regular the Revolution would have been lost. Back then the American Minutemen did have military type rifles. The framers of the 2nd amendment wanted every American to have the chance to keep their government from becoming tyarnnical. A small number of people dying so that all can remain free has always been the price of Liberty. Fear the Federal Government, not a few random crazies.

I am astounded by your blase attitude towards all these dead children.  If there must be an annual cull/ sacrifice, I suggest that NRA members should be in the fist wave of volunteers for execution, then we can leave the kids alone for a while and let them sort out the county.

[Denim]

What is needed here is for the NRA to hold mass meetings all over America to press home their right to bare arms under the constitution.

 

Then while that is happening have several wack jobs open up on them with automatic weapons .....because as has been said ......the media loves mass shootings.

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

'Assault Rifle' 'Military weapon' ?  Heck, if the common ordinary American didn't have a gun as good as a Redcoat Regular the Revolution would have been lost. Back then the American Minutemen did have military type rifles. The framers of the 2nd amendment wanted every American to have the chance to keep their government from becoming tyarnnical. A small number of people dying so that all can remain free has always been the price of Liberty. Fear the Federal Government, not a few random crazies.

You're close to correct.  The 2nd Amendment was addressing the Minutemen and the need for 'a well regulated militia...."   Overweight, drunk, pharma pill-popping Rednecks are not 'a well-regulated militia' ...by anyone's definition.

 

22 minutes ago, riclag said:

Not about the Constitution. Mr Obama had 4 months of Trump power why didn't he focus on banning guns instead of  OCare?

Obama and the Dems did endeavor to ban assault weapons.  Reps and NRA and their blood-soaked millions of dollars thwarted them.   The first bit of legislation that Trump put forth, the day after inauguration, was to facilitate mentally deranged people getting guns.  Connect the dots.

[Opl]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think the Oval Office is the weakest link, not because it is a gun-free zone but instead because the one who can be found there has only partially developed mind that lacks reasoning abilities. A mind that is further crippled by being obsessed with social media every minute of the day from the time they wake up in the morning till the moment they fall asleep at night. I don't think any of us would recognize Oval Office conduct as it exists today compared to what we have known.

"I just don't know what that means" 

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/just-dont-know-means-trump-gets-completely-lost-meeting-school-shootings/

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Not about the Constitution. Mr Obama had 4 months of Trump power why didn't he focus on banning guns instead of  OCare?

Presidents cannot ban guns. It requires a Constitutional Convention given the Supreme Court's wide lattitude given to the 2nd Amendment's interpretation. Until politicians change the conversation to include a Constitutional Convention they are just blowing smoke up the <deleted> of their respective constituents.

[jvs]

Why is it that the anti gun people always come up with new and good arguments to control guns(new shootings of innocent children) and the pro gun people keep using the same old stupid arguments?

No one is as blind as he who does not want to see.

As for so called christians who are eager to shoot,you make me sick!!!

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

You're close to correct.  The 2nd Amendment was addressing the Minutemen and the need for 'a well regulated militia...."   Overweight, drunk, pharma pill-popping Rednecks are not 'a well-regulated militia' ...by anyone's definition.

 

 

 

 

Hate doesn't look good on anybody. I'll bet you think you're one of the good guys, huh?

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Presidents cannot ban guns. It requires a Constitutional Convention given the Supreme Court's wide lattitude given to the 2nd Amendment's interpretation. Until politicians change the conversation to include a Constitutional Convention they are just blowing smoke up the <deleted> of their respective constituents.

Or a different Supreme Court

[lannarebirth]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Or a different Supreme Court

True, but you'd have to have a lot of things go your way. You'd need at least two if not three or four appointments and they'd all have to be judicial activists. If everything went your way, maybe in 20 years you could get that together. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on it.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Why would you ask such a question?  A document written some 200+ years ago may be fine for that time period, but completely out-of-touch today.  It doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers were stupid.  They were right about a great many things, such as the 1st Amendment.  But there were things that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, such as cyber security, environmental protection, access to healthcare, US debt, etc., and yes, the proliferation of firearms which are resulting in innocent Americans being slaughtered. 

They didn't miss anything. The constitution was written to protect citizens from the tyranny of government, which you may understand was the reason for the war they just won against a tyrannical government, against which they rebelled.

It's nothing to do with technology.

Ironical thing about all those going on about how it isn't relevant, is that they want to change it, IMO, to allow tyranny of government again.

Good luck with that.

Edited February 24, 2018 by thaibeachlovers