Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:44     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The first act of a fascist is gun confiscation. The fascist and communist wants to kill you but doesn’t want to get shot.

It’s the best way to identify the fascist


That’s not true. The fascists are always the right-wing cult that has most of the guns.


Just consider this error range in Soviet democide, as shown in Figure 1.1. It is larger than the population of 96 percent of the world's nations and countries. Actually, if France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Switzerland were blasted clean of all human life in a nuclear war, the human toll would be less than just this range in the Soviet's probable democide--the range, and not even the total murdered.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.CHAP.1.HTM

The Soviet Union’s gun control measures included an outright ban on individual gun ownership.

The Bolshevik Revolution put an end to the free circulation of guns among the general public. The leaders of the uprising knew only too well what the masses were capable of, especially if armed up to the teeth, and moved to monopolize gun ownership.

In 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a large scale confiscation of civilian firearms, outlawing their possession and threatening up to 10 years in prison for concealing a gun.

The only exception was made for hunters who were allowed to possess smoothbore weapons. Gun licenses, however, were strictly regulated and only issued by the NKVD, the police organization known for its role in Joseph Stalin’s political purges.


https://www.rbth.com/history/326865-guns-rifles-russia-revolution/amp
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:41     Subject: Re:Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.


Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.


Fascists and control freaks are the first ones to load up on guns.


Were our founders fascists and control freaks?

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785


To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788



"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


+1
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:36     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
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


Did TJ allow his slaves to own guns?
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:35     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
"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.“

So this paragraph from the gun control advocate who wants to see their fellow Americans “slaughtered in the streets,” her words.


Lethal Politics

Contents || Preface || Appendix A: Methods and Procedures
Other Democide Related Documents On This Site

Nontechnical:
What is democide?

"Democide vs genocide. Which is what?"

"War isn't this century's biggest killer"

"How many did communist regimes murder?"

Professional:
"Democide in totalitarian states: mortacracies and megamurderers"

"The Holocaust in comparative and historical perspective"

Graduate Syllabus on Repression and Democide

Statistical:
"Power kills: genocide and mass murder"

"Power predicts democide"

Books:
China's Bloody Century

Nazi Democide

Death By Government

Statistics of Democide (entire)

LETHAL POLITICS

Chapter 1

61,911,000 Victims:
Utopianism Empowered*


By R.J. Rummel



...when we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism.
---- Lenin
"How long will you keep killing people?" asked Lady Astor of Stalin in 1931.
Replied Stalin, "the process would continue as long as was necessary" to establish a communist society.


Probably 61,911,000 people, 54,769,000 of them citizens, have been murdered by the Communist Party--the government--of the Soviet Union. This is about 178 people for each letter, comma, period, digit, and other characters in this book.

Old and young, healthy and sick, men and women, and even infants and infirm, were killed in cold-blood. They were not combatants in civil war or rebellions, they were not criminals. Indeed, nearly all were guilty of ... nothing.


https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.CHAP.1.HTM

Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:31     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me of when Australia became a brutal dictatorship oppressing the populace when they put strict gun laws in place?

Oh that's right, they didn't. Neither did anywhere else.


So true. These nra gun nuts need to relax. We will reinstate the assault weapons ban like we had before and life continued on. We will try to buy back as many as possible because this is an issue that money can greatly solve. No silly dramatic 2nd amendment violence required. And on we go.
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:31     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Anonymous wrote:
The first act of a fascist is gun confiscation. The fascist and communist wants to kill you but doesn’t want to get shot.

It’s the best way to identify the fascist


That’s not true. The fascists are always the right-wing cult that has most of the guns.
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:26     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Anonymous wrote:
The first act of a fascist is gun confiscation. The fascist and communist wants to kill you but doesn’t want to get shot.

It’s the best way to identify the fascist


The fascist and communist uses a gun to make it so you can’t own a gun.

Guns are so bad, only they should own guns. It’s for your own safety and protection!

Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:22     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Anonymous wrote:How do we feel about the PLCAA law that protects gun manufacturers from liability when their guns murder innocent people?


Guns are inanimate objects, have you ever seen a mug shot of a gun that was arrested for murder? Has a gun ever been found guilty of murder by a jury of its peers and been sentenced to prison?

How do guns choose their victims? Do they exact vengeance because of a drug deal gone wrong? Did their gun wives cheat on them with a more expensive and handsome gun so they decided to kill the owner of that gun to teach it a lesson?

Are you saying the criminals who kill people are innocent and the real criminal is the manufacturer of a gun? What if the gun manufacturer puts a little note inside the box the gun is sold in that says that they want the person who buys the gun to obey all laws? What if the gun manufacturer calls the gun owner’s mom and asks her to facetime the gun owner and tell them not to kill people? What if the gun owner’s mom says she is too busy doing crack, can the victim’s family sue her for raising a person that thinks murder is a viable option?

If a gun manufacturer is guilty of murder for producing a gun, should the person who used the gun to kill another human being sue the gun manufacturer for producing an item that caused them to be imprisoned? After all, if the manufacturer didn’t make the gun, the killer would not have had the ability to kill another human?
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:05     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why not require a test, a license and a waiting period to get a gun? Require at least the same degree of bureaucracy that is needed to get a drivers license.



The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



It doesn't say anything about unfettered access.


The Second Amendment states that as an American citizen, you have the individual right to arm yourself. The amendment firmly establishes that the government cannot infringe on that right.

The Fourth Amendment, which protects another fundamental individual right, uses similar language. The Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

This is notable because it affirms that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful uses.

The court decision was a breakthrough for Second Amendment rights. It meant that the Founding Fathers’ intention to grant that individual right could not be misinterpreted by those seeking to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation.

The ruling read, in part:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, some states still tried to pass laws that infringed upon an individual right to keep and bear arms. In McDonald, the Supreme Court affirmed that through the Fourteenth Amendment, Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of city or state.

The ruling reads, in part:

“… the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.”

Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 19:05     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
How do we feel about the PLCAA law that protects gun manufacturers from liability when their guns murder innocent people?
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 18:56     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
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.

Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 18:26     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
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.


Did you read the post this post is responding to? A gun control freak proposed using Bradley Fighting Vehicles and attack helicopters on American citizens who owned guns.

Why is that not chilling?
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 18:24     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
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.


So take guns away from the criminals, not law abiding citizens.

There can be 3 billion guns in circulation, lthe responsible and law abiding gun owners aren’t using guns to kill or harm anyone. They are already following the law.

Why are criminals using guns currently to do these things? There are already hundreds of laws that prohibit criminal behavior. Why will criminals follow the new laws you all want to pass?

At what point are you willfully ignoring the fact that criminals aren’t going to follow any law passed, so what is the real reason you want to take my guns?


So there are less guns which equals less opportunity to use them to kill people.
Less guns = less opportunity to use one to kill people. Simple. It's so simple.
My question to you is why do you think you need a gun? What are you so afraid of?


The 2nd Amendment gives every American the right to own a gun. I am exercising my 2nd Amendment rights.

What other rights guaranteed by the Constitution are exercised out of “fear?”

Owning guns and hunting and shooting skeet are all enjoyable hobbies. Hunting is extremely enjoyable and venison is delicious. It’s nice to have a freezer packed with venison.

Why do you associate a Constitutional right with fear? You seem to be projecting your fear of guns onto other people.

My Military training with weapons began in Basic Training, every trainee must qualify on their weapon to graduate Basic Training. That is not based on fear;
it’s based on the ability to safely and effectively use a weapon to protect yourself, your buddies, and protect America. You do understand there are many people who don’t like Americans and America, and we protect our people and country with weapons, right?

Do you think police should be unarmed- what are they afraid of?

Politicians and celebrities have bodyguards and security- what are they afraid of?

Jewish synagogues have armed security guards- what are they afraid of?

Walk into your local Social Security Administration office, the first person you will encounter is a fully armed security guard- what are they afraid of?

Why do you live in the community you do? Did you choose a house in part based on location? You did? Why? Are you so afraid of crime you bought a house in an area with low crime? Why? What are you afraid of in low or lower ses communities?

Do you lock your door to your home, have a security system, and Ring/Nest doorbells and cameras around your home and property? What are you afraid of?

Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 18:23     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
Can someone remind me of when Australia became a brutal dictatorship oppressing the populace when they put strict gun laws in place?

Oh that's right, they didn't. Neither did anywhere else.
Anonymous
Post 02/15/2024 18:09     Subject: Mass shooting at KC Chiefs victory parade
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.