Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade

[Anonymous]

As I suspected, a couple of thugs involved in a spray and pray shootout. Perhaps if cities used some of the defund the police money on weapons trading for these kids, innocent bystanders would not be injured and killed and the problem would quickly resolve itself.

[Anonymous]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-city-radio-station-confirms-death-dj-lisa/story?id=107248321

The woman killed was a prominent DJ in Kansas City, Missouri. Her children and some younger children cousins were injured. She comes from a large and well-established Hispanic and Catholic family from Kansas City’s West Side.

She and her siblings grew up in KCMO and they attended Catholic schools in the mostly white suburbs. Many children from Hispanic, Black, and Italian American families would drive across the Missouri River to attend Catholic schools in safe neighborhoods.

Definitely expect an outpouring of sympathy and action for calls to end this type of crime and gun violence from their community.

[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.

OMG you don’t need private security because you are not a target. Who do you think you are?

[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.

OMG you don’t need private security because you are not a target. Who do you think you are?

The people shot and injured and killed at this parade- the topic of this thread- were they people you consider a target?

Why were they shot? Were the 20 people shot and 1 person killed high value targets?

You are so dumb you can’t process information. The very people we are discussing illustrate the problem you deny exists.

If you like being shot dead in the street, your kids and family helpless and disarmed, and gaslight by democrats- keep voting for democrats.

Parade goers tackled and disarmed these juvenile shooters when about 800 police were present. You can’t depend on police to save your life or your family’s life.

You will be disarmed, the police won’t save you, and democrats will tell you you are crazy because you want to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

[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.

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.

Untrue and irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How does your incredulity pass muster as an argument? The pro-gun posters have not posted even one single piece of data or evidence or citation whatsoever to back your side of the argument yet here you are attacking and questioning the people who do post links to disprove?

[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.

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.

Untrue and irrelevant.

“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.”

This is the original paragraph that pp (you?) has never posted any supporting evidence or proof of.

Why are you dying on a hill of unproven and unsupported claims?

What countries have voted for gun control and significantly reduced their need for armed private security? List them, what year their populace voted for gun control, and the level and cost of armed private security prior to gun control and now after gun control has been implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How does your incredulity pass muster as an argument? The pro-gun posters have not posted even one single piece of data or evidence or citation whatsoever to back your side of the argument yet here you are attacking and questioning the people who do post links to disprove?

What claims have pro SECOND AMENDMENT posters claimed that need evidence?

[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/

I think the only quote that is untrue is the quote pointed out above. The rest are authentic.

It’s ironic pp pointed out the single untrue quote and was outraged about it, but then lied and said other quotes were made up by the NRA. They are not made up by the NRA. If there were other false quotes pp would be sure to let us all know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-city-radio-station-confirms-death-dj-lisa/story?id=107248321

The woman killed was a prominent DJ in Kansas City, Missouri. Her children and some younger children cousins were injured. She comes from a large and well-established Hispanic and Catholic family from Kansas City’s West Side.

She and her siblings grew up in KCMO and they attended Catholic schools in the mostly white suburbs. Many children from Hispanic, Black, and Italian American families would drive across the Missouri River to attend Catholic schools in safe neighborhoods.

Definitely expect an outpouring of sympathy and action for calls to end this type of crime and gun violence from their community.

Remember: democrats posting here think this woman should have paid $500k+ to private security guards to protect herself from criminal shooters, and want to strip all Americans of their 2A rights.

The Dems on here are tired of having the gun lobby nonsense imposed on us. Stand up to these blood suckers you weakling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-city-radio-station-confirms-death-dj-lisa/story?id=107248321

The woman killed was a prominent DJ in Kansas City, Missouri. Her children and some younger children cousins were injured. She comes from a large and well-established Hispanic and Catholic family from Kansas City’s West Side.

She and her siblings grew up in KCMO and they attended Catholic schools in the mostly white suburbs. Many children from Hispanic, Black, and Italian American families would drive across the Missouri River to attend Catholic schools in safe neighborhoods.

Definitely expect an outpouring of sympathy and action for calls to end this type of crime and gun violence from their community.

Remember: democrats posting here think this woman should have paid $500k+ to private security guards to protect herself from criminal shooters, and want to strip all Americans of their 2A rights.

The Dems on here are tired of having the gun lobby nonsense imposed on us. Stand up to these blood suckers you weakling.

Stand up to the Second Amendment, you mean? The gun lobby doesn’t give Americans the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment does.

Amazing how many democrats openly state they oppose our Constitution.

The blood suckers are the founding fathers, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-city-radio-station-confirms-death-dj-lisa/story?id=107248321

The woman killed was a prominent DJ in Kansas City, Missouri. Her children and some younger children cousins were injured. She comes from a large and well-established Hispanic and Catholic family from Kansas City’s West Side.

She and her siblings grew up in KCMO and they attended Catholic schools in the mostly white suburbs. Many children from Hispanic, Black, and Italian American families would drive across the Missouri River to attend Catholic schools in safe neighborhoods.

Definitely expect an outpouring of sympathy and action for calls to end this type of crime and gun violence from their community.

Remember: democrats posting here think this woman should have paid $500k+ to private security guards to protect herself from criminal shooters, and want to strip all Americans of their 2A rights.

The Dems on here are tired of having the gun lobby nonsense imposed on us. Stand up to these blood suckers you weakling.

If you are tired of guns then work to change the Constitution or leave. The constant whining is getting old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-city-radio-station-confirms-death-dj-lisa/story?id=107248321

The woman killed was a prominent DJ in Kansas City, Missouri. Her children and some younger children cousins were injured. She comes from a large and well-established Hispanic and Catholic family from Kansas City’s West Side.

She and her siblings grew up in KCMO and they attended Catholic schools in the mostly white suburbs. Many children from Hispanic, Black, and Italian American families would drive across the Missouri River to attend Catholic schools in safe neighborhoods.

Definitely expect an outpouring of sympathy and action for calls to end this type of crime and gun violence from their community.

Remember: democrats posting here think this woman should have paid $500k+ to private security guards to protect herself from criminal shooters, and want to strip all Americans of their 2A rights.

The Dems on here are tired of having the gun lobby nonsense imposed on us. Stand up to these blood suckers you weakling.

If you are tired of guns then work to change the Constitution or leave. The constant whining is getting old.

The constitution says what SCOTUS determines 8s says. Change SCOTUS, change the interpretation of 2A. Cray and whine all you want but assault weapons were banned before and they will be banned again and you will be fine.

[Anonymous]

The US has the highest firearm homicide rate in the developed world

The US was home to 4% of the world’s population but accounted for 44% of global suicides by firearm in 2019

No other developed nation has mass shootings at the same scale or frequency as the US

The United States is the only nation in the world where civilian guns outnumber people.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us-gun-culture-world-comparison-intl-cmd/index.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The US has the highest firearm homicide rate in the developed world

The US was home to 4% of the world’s population but accounted for 44% of global suicides by firearm in 2019

No other developed nation has mass shootings at the same scale or frequency as the US

The United States is the only nation in the world where civilian guns outnumber people.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us-gun-culture-world-comparison-intl-cmd/index.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

Thanks for nothing gun industry.