Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade

[Anonymous]

I grew up in KC. It's not really that unusual to be at a public event or driving in your car or in bed, and hear gun fire. Crime is usually concentrated in certain areas of the city. Teens in KC can sometimes be very erratic in their behavior, almost anywhere adults gather. It's been a problem since the 1980s. I don't know if there's a curfew in place for teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in KC. It's not really that unusual to be at a public event or driving in your car or in bed, and hear gun fire. Crime is usually concentrated in certain areas of the city. Teens in KC can sometimes be very erratic in their behavior, almost anywhere adults gather. It's been a problem since the 1980s. I don't know if there's a curfew in place for teens.

From the KCPD website, there is a summer curfew in KCMO for unaccompanied youth. I don't know if the curfew in the summer helps.

Police would like to remind parents and children that the City’s summer curfew for unaccompanied youth goes into effect May 24.

The summer curfew is meant to promote a safe environment for all and focuses only on youth who are unaccompanied by a parent or responsible adult after evening hours. The curfews are as follows:


Entertainment Districts
Country Club Plaza, Westport, Jazz District, Zona Rosa, Downtown

17 years old or younger - 9 p.m.

Citywide

Ages 15 and younger – 10 p.m.

Ages 16-17 – 11 p.m.


If a child is found in violation of the curfew, they could be detained, and their parent or guardian – not the child – will be issued a citation with a court-recommended minimum fine of $125 and a maximum of $500. The curfew is in effect from Memorial Day weekend through the last Sunday in September.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of activities for youth in Kansas City, Mo., during the summer months, such as:

ClubKC events at locations throughout the city. More information will be available soon.
Police Athletic League (PAL) Nights: 4:30-9:30 p.m. every Friday and Saturday Night at the PAL Center, 1801 White Ave.
Public libraries – extended hours for special summer events, check out kclibrary.org
Summer camps throughout the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

You're a completely unserious person coming it from completely the wrong angle.

It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

You're a completely unserious person coming it from completely the wrong angle.

It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country.

Dimes to doughnuts those countries depend on us funding NATO, and we send our Military to defend them against their enemies because they can’t field a decent fighting force and protect themselves.

Nobody is going to vote for gun control.

Truthfully, if democrats thought they could ram gun control through they would. But they cannot do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

You're a completely unserious person coming it from completely the wrong angle.

It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country.

We don’t need to pay for private security because we have the 2nd Amendment.

Which countrirs had private citizens paying for 24 hour private security and
voted for gun control and had their need for private security significantly reduced?

You said it has been proven in country after country? Show data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson Memorial
NPS/Nathan King
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Inscriptions:

Rotunda
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

-Excerpted from a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush,

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson


When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

Thomas Jefferson

[Our Constitution] is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.
Patrick Henry


It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.

Benjamin Franklin


Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

Hubert H. Humphrey


The great object is that every man be armed.

Patrick Henry


Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.

Aristotle

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Thomas Jefferson


The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.

James Monroe

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters

Daniel Webster


Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Patrick Henry


The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

Alexander Hamilton


After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

William S. Burroughs

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

George Mason


After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.

William S. Burroughs

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.

George Washington

Context (and a lot of fact) lacking copy-and-paste brought to courtesy of dishonest NRA lackeys.

Most of those quotes are completely fictitious, and were faked by Turning Point USA. For example the very last one:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-washington-firearms/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

You're a completely unserious person coming it from completely the wrong angle.

It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country.

We don’t need to pay for private security because we have the 2nd Amendment.

Which countrirs had private citizens paying for 24 hour private security and
voted for gun control and had their need for private security significantly reduced?

You said it has been proven in country after country? Show data.

Complete bullshit. Increased private gun ownership has done exactly jack shit to deter crime. The data proves this, over and over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

You're a completely unserious person coming it from completely the wrong angle.

It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country.

We don’t need to pay for private security because we have the 2nd Amendment.

Which countrirs had private citizens paying for 24 hour private security and
voted for gun control and had their need for private security significantly reduced?

You said it has been proven in country after country? Show data.

Complete bullshit. Increased private gun ownership has done exactly jack shit to deter crime. The data proves this, over and over and over again.

Data you won’t source or cite? Show your work, instead of cursing like an angry fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson Memorial
NPS/Nathan King
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Inscriptions:

Rotunda
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

-Excerpted from a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush,

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson


When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

Thomas Jefferson

[Our Constitution] is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.
Patrick Henry


It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.

Benjamin Franklin


Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

Hubert H. Humphrey


The great object is that every man be armed.

Patrick Henry


Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.

Aristotle

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Thomas Jefferson


The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.

James Monroe

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters

Daniel Webster


Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Patrick Henry


The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

Alexander Hamilton


After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

William S. Burroughs

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

George Mason


After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.

William S. Burroughs

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.

George Washington

Context (and a lot of fact) lacking copy-and-paste brought to courtesy of dishonest NRA lackeys.

Most of those quotes are completely fictitious, and were faked by Turning Point USA. For example the very last one:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-washington-firearms/

The snopes article you linked to only claimed the one Washington quote was false, possibly.

What about the rest of the quotes?

Do you have a link to show each one is false?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

You're a completely unserious person coming it from completely the wrong angle.

It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country.

We don’t need to pay for private security because we have the 2nd Amendment.

Which countrirs had private citizens paying for 24 hour private security and
voted for gun control and had their need for private security significantly reduced?

You said it has been proven in country after country? Show data.

Complete bullshit. Increased private gun ownership has done exactly jack shit to deter crime. The data proves this, over and over and over again.

Data you won’t source or cite? Show your work, instead of cursing like an angry fool.

Where's YOUR data? Oh that's right YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY. Just NRA fiction that's been provan to be fiction over and over and over again. You are hilarious, to complain about fools when you are the biggest fool here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Those are some warped and bloodthirsty execution fantasies right there.

You are also making a false comparison with this line: “Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?”

The politicians don’t carry assault weapons around in self defense. They hire trained security to use the guns. I would be ok if private citizens could hire professional security.

Aren’t you a generous person? You are ok with allowing private citizens to hire professional security?

How much does 24 hour private security cost? How do you suggest that Americans pay for that?


Ballpark Costs for Bodyguards:

The average cost to hire a single, experienced armed guard with a military background is $60-$100 per hour.
That makes the monthly cost for a one-guard security detail working in shifts at a range of $43,200/mo – $72,000/mo.
Annually, that brings the annual total for 24/7 protection to between $518,400/year – $864,000/year.

So you expect Americans to be stripped of their gun rights because criminals don’t obey laws, and pay over half a million for 24 hour private security for an armed guard to have a gun and protect them?

If you vote democrat^^^this is what you vote for. An absolute tw@t explaining you don’t need or deserve the right to protect yourself, your home, our your family.

You're a completely unserious person coming it from completely the wrong angle.

It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country.

We don’t need to pay for private security because we have the 2nd Amendment.

Which countrirs had private citizens paying for 24 hour private security and
voted for gun control and had their need for private security significantly reduced?

You said it has been proven in country after country? Show data.

Complete bullshit. Increased private gun ownership has done exactly jack shit to deter crime. The data proves this, over and over and over again.

Data you won’t source or cite? Show your work, instead of cursing like an angry fool.

Where's YOUR data? Oh that's right YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY. Just NRA fiction that's been provan to be fiction over and over and over again. You are hilarious, to complain about fools when you are the biggest fool here.

I am not claiming anything. You are making a claim:

“It would be much cheaper to vote for robust and coherent gun control policies which would significantly reduce the NEED for armed private security in the first place. This has been repeately proven in country after country. ” (copied from your post)

You clearly state that in country after country, gun control has been voted on and passed into law, and people living in those countries don’t need private security private security as much anymore.

Wealthy and privileged people will always have private security armed with fully automatic weapons;

working class people and even people making a lot of money can’t afford $500k+ to pay for private 24 hour security.

So where is the reduction in need for private security after gun control happening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson Memorial
NPS/Nathan King
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Inscriptions:

Rotunda
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

-Excerpted from a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush,

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson


When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

Thomas Jefferson

[Our Constitution] is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.
Patrick Henry


It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.

Benjamin Franklin


Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

Hubert H. Humphrey


The great object is that every man be armed.

Patrick Henry


Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.

Aristotle

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Thomas Jefferson


The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.

James Monroe

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters

Daniel Webster


Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Patrick Henry


The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

Alexander Hamilton


After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

William S. Burroughs

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

George Mason


After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.

William S. Burroughs

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.

George Washington

Context (and a lot of fact) lacking copy-and-paste brought to courtesy of dishonest NRA lackeys.

Most of those quotes are completely fictitious, and were faked by Turning Point USA. For example the very last one:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-washington-firearms/

“The statement attributed to the first U.S. president reads, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. Firearms are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." Much like the cherry tree legend about him, however, the quote appears to be a fabrication.“

Ok, this quote is probably false, like the story about GW chopping down a cherry tree.

Are any of the other quotes false?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

This is actually chilling to read. I can’t tell if you’re mentally ill or if this is a normal perspective among gun lovers like you.

report
[Post New]01/19/2024 12:01
Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:


So you want a dictator, think US citizens would behave in the same manner as citizens as the former Soviet Union, think UN troops could disarm the American public and everyone would live in peace and harmony every after?

Quite the vivid imagination you have.



“I don’t believe everyone will live in peace and harmony. I believe a lot of gun extremists need to die and will die in the process. And I don’t give a **** about them. I care about the rest of us, the 240 million people who DON’T have guns. If some of those gun nutters surrender peacefully and turn their guns in by the deadline then that’s fine. Then can all have reduced or light sentences, fines, probation and the like. They will be treated easily. It’s the holdouts I want to see getting slaughtered in the streets.

And yes, the UN will happily assist our country if we ask them to. Because their support is essential to the process. We cannot trust our own military and law enforcement, which has been heavily infiltrated by the right wingers, to carry out gun safety initiatives like this because too many of them cannot be trusted to crack down on these criminals.

And by “behave in the same manner as citizens of the former Soviet Union” you mean not murder their fellow citizens with guns then yes that is exactly how I expect them to behave. The Soviets were’t plagued with guns and gun nutters and crime. They dealt with malcontents harshly and immediately, and had a essentially crime free society because of it. Their human rights record leaves a lot to be desired in terms of political dissidents, but for the everyday ordinary person, the6 didn’t have to wonder if they’d be massacred every time they left their homes.

It’s not a vivid imagination. It’s a vision. And if we can elect someone with the courage to carry it out, we can achieve it. Otherwise we’ll also be at the mercy of republicans and the gun lobby. And I’ve had enough of both to want them exterminated.”


and next:

It’s a vision we will live to see. This is the correct answer to our society’s biggest problems. It would rid us of small minded bigots and maga.

Gun owners are all cowards. They must either be disarmed or removed from society one way or another.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/60/1180122.page

This thread featured gun control “advocates” speaking about how they want to kill American citizens for owning guns.

Are you chilled by that? It’s so confusing that you are chilled by my defense of the 2nd Amendment, and by my reaction to being threatened by democrats with being killed by a Bradley or attack helicopter for exercising my constitutional right to own guns.

Again: gun control advocates don’t care about saving lives, because they want to kill their fellow citizens to take their guns.

They want to implement gun control, that’s the plan. Human life means nothing to them.

I really like the UN takeover guy, his posts are very entertaining. He must have so much fun sitting in his parents basement wearing his blue helmet moving his army men (that he paints blue helmets on) around a large table capturing guns from law abiding citizens.

Just wish he would get the help he needs.