Gun Bans Work?

[baddog]

Apparently not. What a way for kids to live. Lefties should be proud.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

Strict gun laws work great for the bad guys.

[Englebert]

I'm curious as to how long we will have to wait for the inevitable and willfully naïve "No one's trying to take your guns" comment.

[Hagar]

I can't even imagine what those families go thru.  And everyone is scared to say anything, or the gangbangers will come after them.  I must state the obvious, isn't this a perfect example of, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"?  And of course now it's even worse because BLM has the handcuffed the Police.  Heaven forbid an officer actually kills one of these pos.

[BS Wildcats]

Don't forget who the mayor of Chicago is, Rahm Emanuel, an Obama man. He's running that city about as well as Obama has run the country, poorly I might add.

[baddog]

Toughest gun laws in the entire country.....

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, baddog said:

Toughest gun laws in the entire country.....

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Don't blame the guns or the cops, blame the democrats running  ruining the city.

[BS Wildcats]

17 hours ago, baddog said:

Toughest gun laws in the entire country.....

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And you wonder why Obama is staying in DC, rather than move to his home city of Chicago?

[baddog]

10 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

And you wonder why Obama is staying in DC, rather than move to his home city of Chicago?

Hes a putz. Add one to the death toll....12.

[westend1]

Depends on if you are really serious about it.  Any reputable source you look at says it worked in Australia

[Englebert]

8 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Depends on if you are really serious about it.  Any reputable source you look at says it worked in Australia

No, a reputable source would say Australia's gun ban has brought gun murder rates down from minuscule to microscopic. No reputable source I have seen even tries to correlate the same rate of decline for robbery, rape, and other crimes. And none have attempted to calculate the exposure to foreign invasion. The "reputable" research is non-existent.

[Hagar]

I posted this several years back, and it should be posted at least yearly.  It is the best Pro Gun argument I've ever read, and all of us should read it again, at least yearly.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Ty Cobb]

Good read. Makes sense. I just bought a gun yesterday.

[77]

very good!

[baddog]

2 hours ago, Ty Cobb said:

Good read. Makes sense. I just bought a gun yesterday.

It won't be your last. What did you get?

[Ty Cobb]

Smith&Wesson AR. There was an application in the box to join the NRA. I'm now a member as well. 

[Remmus]

I'm all for "sensible" gun ownership and control.  I firmly believe the amount of home invasions and all sorts of other crimes are greatly limited here in Texas by the number of law abiding gun owning citizens.  You gotta be pretty much desperate and crazy to try a home invasion here.  Probably 80-90% chance of running into a homeowner that is better armed than the perp..lol.  With that said, these AR's are too much.  Weapons that can commit mass murder (and we've seen it over and over again) really don't need to be circulating.  Yes, the criminals have them and will keep getting them and we have police to deal with that.  I'll pop a perp with a glock in exchange for limiting the chance another school or church gets showered with military style weapons.

My belief is many people buy AR's as a statement of freedom, instead of a real need.

[baddog]

31 minutes ago, Remmus said:

I'm all for "sensible" gun ownership and control.  I firmly believe the amount of home invasions and all sorts of other crimes are greatly limited here in Texas by the number of law abiding gun owning citizens.  You gotta be pretty much desperate and crazy to try a home invasion here.  Probably 80-90% chance of running into a homeowner that is better armed than the perp..lol.  With that said, these AR's are too much.  Weapons that can commit mass murder (and we've seen it over and over again) really don't need to be circulating.  Yes, the criminals have them and will keep getting them and we have police to deal with that.  I'll pop a perp with a glock in exchange for limiting the chance another school or church gets showered with military style weapons.

My belief is many people buy AR's as a statement of freedom, instead of a real need.

Dylann Roof used a Glock .45. Also, allowing guns to start being banned could create a "domino effect"...."a foot in the door scenario"....."give them an inch and they will take a mile". This is the bigger fear.

tvc had a post a while back about the conceal-ability of a handgun vs. the dreaded AR. It made perfect sense as to mobility, reaload frequency, extra magazine capability. Why lug around an AR when a semi-auto handgun makes more sense?

Gun ownership is an expression of freedom as it is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. There is more to citizens owning guns that simply hunting or home protection.

[Remmus]

28 minutes ago, baddog said:

Dylann Roof used a Glock .45. Also, allowing guns to start being banned could create a "domino effect"...."a foot in the door scenario"....."give them an inch and they will take a mile". This is the bigger fear.

tvc had a post a while back about the conceal-ability of a handgun vs. the dreaded AR. It made perfect sense as to mobility, reaload frequency, extra magazine capability. Why lug around an AR when a semi-auto handgun makes more sense?

Gun ownership is an expression of freedom as it is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. There is more to citizens owning guns that simply hunting or home protection.

Yep, I've heard similar sentiment from gun owners I've met re: give an inch and take a mile.  It's no secret that belief is what boosted AR sales.  I also agree a semi-auto handgun is an easy to conceal item but these nut jobs seem to find a way to bring the big toys out.  

Mentally ill people getting their hands on guns is bad for gun owners as well as gun opponents.  This should be a point of compromise and agreement that leads to new measures/laws to protect everyone.  Also, if you're on the no fly list for good reason...no gun.  If you're immigrating from a known enemy region...no gun.  If you're here illegally...no gun.

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, Remmus said:

Yep, I've heard similar sentiment from gun owners I've met re: give an inch and take a mile.  It's no secret that belief is what boosted AR sales.  I also agree a semi-auto handgun is an easy to conceal item but these nut jobs seem to find a way to bring the big toys out.  

Mentally ill people getting their hands on guns is bad for gun owners as well as gun opponents.  This should be a point of compromise and agreement that leads to new measures/laws to protect everyone.  Also, if you're on the no fly list for good reason...no gun.  If you're immigrating from a known enemy region...no gun.  If you're here illegally...no gun.

Really? Please define what constitutes mental illness. And in your definition please include what aspects should preclude a person from exercising their second amendment rights. And please state why a small group of people should have the unchecked ability to strip a person of their constitutional rights without due process. If that ability should exist, shouldn't we have the same ability to add names to a list that prevents a person from voting?  I can think of around 65 million people who should be on a non-voting list based on their Liberal mental disease.

As far as immigrating from a known enemy region precluding you from exercising your second amendment rights, well then...the Liberals will be all over that one. You will be branded a racist and islamophobe, and will probably lose your job within the hour. And if a person coming from one of these regions is so untrustworthy, why are we letting them in?

As far as illegals owing guns, well they shouldn't own anything...they are here illegally and should be deported immediately whether in possession of a firearm or not. That's kind of like saying that people with no license/suspended license can't use a cell phone while driving.

[Remmus]

55 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Really? Please define what constitutes mental illness. And in your definition please include what aspects should preclude a person from exercising their second amendment rights. And please state why a small group of people should have the unchecked ability to strip a person of their constitutional rights without due process. If that ability should exist, shouldn't we have the same ability to add names to a list that prevents a person from voting?  I can think of around 65 million people who should be on a non-voting list based on their Liberal mental disease.

As far as immigrating from a known enemy region precluding you from exercising your second amendment rights, well then...the Liberals will be all over that one. You will be branded a racist and islamophobe, and will probably lose your job within the hour. And if a person coming from one of these regions is so untrustworthy, why are we letting them in?

As far as illegals owing guns, well they shouldn't own anything...they are here illegally and should be deported immediately whether in possession of a firearm or not. That's kind of like saying that people with no license/suspended license can't use a cell phone while driving.

You must be about 5 cans into that 6-pack of Shiner...lol.

You can't call liberal thinking a mental illness anymore than liberals can call conservatives crazy.  Just different ideology.  And maybe a small amount of it (ON BOTH SIDES) has roots in emotional or mental issues.  I'm sure a psych could make correlations all day long.

Defining mental illness....well, that will be the work of our elected officials in cooperation with trained professionals.  I'd start with banning people on any psychotropic meds or have spent any time in a mental institution.  While we're defining things, lets define the 2nd amendment too.  I mean, can we bear bazookas?  Anti-aircraft missiles? How about nukes?  No that would be crazy, right?  They're all "arms."  We gotta draw the line somewhere.  Our founding fathers were fighting with what amounts to a pellet gun.  Also, they were being hard pressed by a guy across the ocean wearing a crown.

Regarding liberals response to my statement, yeah, unfortunately you're right.  I like that President-elect is changing up that dynamic in the country and challenging stupid P.C. ideas that solve nothing or create more problems.

Your last thought about illegals is based on how it should be and not how it is.  Based on our current reality we could ban gun ownership of illegals.  How do you pass a background check with no ID?

 

[stevenash]

2 hours ago, Remmus said:

Yep, I've heard similar sentiment from gun owners I've met re: give an inch and take a mile.  It's no secret that belief is what boosted AR sales.  I also agree a semi-auto handgun is an easy to conceal item but these nut jobs seem to find a way to bring the big toys out.  

Mentally ill people getting their hands on guns is bad for gun owners as well as gun opponents.  This should be a point of compromise and agreement that leads to new measures/laws to protect everyone.  Also, if you're on the no fly list for good reason...no gun.  If you're immigrating from a known enemy region...no gun.  If you're here illegally...no gun.

Will someone like Lois Lerner be responsible for who is on the no-fly list?

[baddog]

How about no guns for Chicago? Oh wait, it's already that way. To me, this is the most substantive proof that banning guns does absolutely nothing to curb crime or gun violence.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, Remmus said:

You must be about 5 cans into that 6-pack of Shiner...lol.

You can't call liberal thinking a mental illness anymore than liberals can call conservatives crazy.  Just different ideology.  And maybe a small amount of it (ON BOTH SIDES) has roots in emotional or mental issues.  I'm sure a psych could make correlations all day long.

Defining mental illness....well, that will be the work of our elected officials in cooperation with trained professionals.  I'd start with banning people on any psychotropic meds or have spent any time in a mental institution.  While we're defining things, lets define the 2nd amendment too.  I mean, can we bear bazookas?  Anti-aircraft missiles? How about nukes?  No that would be crazy, right?  They're all "arms."  We gotta draw the line somewhere.  Our founding fathers were fighting with what amounts to a pellet gun.  Also, they were being hard pressed by a guy across the ocean wearing a crown.

Regarding liberals response to my statement, yeah, unfortunately you're right.  I like that President-elect is changing up that dynamic in the country and challenging stupid P.C. ideas that solve nothing or create more problems.

Your last thought about illegals is based on how it should be and not how it is.  Based on our current reality we could ban gun ownership of illegals.  How do you pass a background check with no ID?

 

I'm talking about Liberal mental disease in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, but using it to make a point that the "rules" can easily be slanted depending on who is in charge of writing the "rules".

I have a Masters degree in Psychology so I know a little about the subject. It is impossible to determine in this day and age who will become violent and who will not, even by trained professionals. Take any standard or measure you want, then use the "Stephen King analysis" (which in not a real methodology). Should Stephen King be stripped of his constitutional rights. I'm sure you are aware of King's writings, but if not, look up some of his works then tell me if a brilliantly twisted mind such as his is not on the brink of mass slaughter. Currently it is impossible to predict violent behavior. Sure, many people will say in hind-sight "we should have seen the warning signs". Well these same warning signs are displayed every day by "normal" citizens.

With this in mind, please list some examples of behavior that you think should preclude someone from owning a gun. You mentioned anyone on psychotropic meds. What percentage of the population that is currently on these types of medication pose a threat to other people? Look up the stats then tell me if banning a constitutional right of millions of people is justifiable because a few "might" become violent. I'm curious to hear any proposals/background check questions that will accurately predict future violent behavior without disenfranchising and infringing on people's constitutional rights. And who do we trust to define the rules? As stevenash asked, "Lois Lerner, should she be trusted with this task?" What about Diane Feinstein? What about any congressman from California? What about me? And what happens when these rules do not work. I know, we write more rules. When those fail, we write more rules. Pretty soon even the Pope will not be able to pass a background check.

And what about the nut-case zealots who will stoop to unethical a sometimes illegal activities to get their way. And gun control/confiscation is the top priority for many of them. Do you believe that congressmen will abstain from trying to attach riders to popular bills that create increasingly stringent rules to background checks? A congressman recently proposed banning guns from anyone going through a divorce. Diane Feinstein recently proposed banning guns from all military personnel returning from active duty. And you want to put our constitutional rights into the hands of some bureaucrats? I'm surprised some congressman hasn't proposed banning all guns from anyone from Texas.

If someone is determined to be "unfit" to own a gun, should that person also be stripped of his right to vote? After all, selecting the wrong president can be severely damaging to hundreds of millions of people as was demonstrated by the last administration. If we can't trust a person with self-protection, should we trust them to elect our representatives? Shouldn't we have background checks for the right to vote? Should we create a department to construct and maintain a "no-vote" list? And who should be privileged with carrying out this task? Hollywood?

Our government has already banned/defined private ownership of bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles and nukes with basically zero opposition. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that comment.

 

[Remmus]

44 minutes ago, baddog said:

How about no guns for Chicago? Oh wait, it's already that way. To me, this is the most substantive proof that banning guns does absolutely nothing to curb crime or gun violence.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Chicago is an absolute joke.  I think its  as bad or worse than back when the crips and bloods terrorized south central L.A.. My step-son is dating a young lady from Chicago.  Her family moved here to escape the insanity.  She recently flew back to Chicago to bury a friend (I believe she's been to several funerals).  Yeah, the policies in that city are nuts.  Conspiracy theorist might make the argument that Chicago really doesn't want to control guns in order to "thin the herd" and also fill up the jails.  Some Texas style law enforcement would serve Chicago well.