Take away Americans guns

[PureX]

:chuckle: I always find it amusing when I have to break it to someone that it's not a Cop's job to protect you as a private citizen and he/she is under no obligation to do so. Now, granted, he/she may indeed do so because they are a decent human being or do so in the performance of their duties (enforcing the law)...But that would be incidental.

Right, because when they swear to "protect and serve" the public that pays them to do so they're actually crossing their fingers behind their backs. So they don't really have to protect and serve anyone, as they've sworn an oath to do.

 

[Poly]

This is simply not true. No American politician wants to take away anyone's guns.

What people want, and some politicians, too, is to regulate gun ownership and use so that we can minimize the number of deaths caused by firearms.

When you tell yourself, and others, lies like this, you are only making a bad situation worse. And so is the NRA, and the right wing media when they tell the same lie.

No one is suggesting that we ban gun ownership, or take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

I'll repeat this because I know you don't want to recognize it:

No one is suggesting that we ban gun ownership, or that we take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” -Hillary Clinton

Article

 

[PureX]

“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” -Hillary Clinton

Article

The Supreme Court has been wrong on any number of things.

And your linked article is a pack of lies from start to finish.

Please find me the actual quote where Hillary Clinton states that she wants to take away the citizen's right to own guns. I am sure she wants to regulate that right, as do most Americans, but regulating the right to own guns is not denying us the right to own them. It's simply a demand that we take some social responsibility for the public danger involved in owning them.

 

[exminister]

Machine guns are automatic weapons for military use. The term "assault weapon" is a term that applies to "ANYTHING" that is used to assault with. Automobiles are also dangerous, should we take them away also?

Try using your automobile as a weapon and run over people.
1) do you think they will take your automobile from you?
2) do you think it is wrong for them to take your automobile from you?
3) do you think as a result of your abuse of the automobile the government will take automobiles away from everyone?
4) do you think it is wrong to register your automobile with the government?

 

[TomO]

Right, because when they swear to "protect and serve" the public that pays them to do so they're actually crossing their fingers behind their backs. So they don't really have to protect and serve anyone, as they've sworn an oath to do.

:yawn: Right...The old "Protect and Serve" canard. That's what I love about you; you always come up, right off the bat, with a way to proclaim "I have no idea what I am talking about" before you continue on with your ramblings.

 

[Nick M]

No one individual could kill 50 innocent Americans and wound another 53 without access to an automatic assault rifle with large magazines of ammunition.

For the record, he had a single shot 22 caliber rifle. One shot with each pull of the trigger.

Assault rifles were designed for only one purpose

Yep. That is why I have mine. I will not be caught off guard by rioters financed by democrats like in Ferguson, or muslims in any place.

 

[CherubRam]

Now that is plain silly

First Known Use of the term assault weapon 1973.

 

[CherubRam]

No. I have a long time friend from Sweden. She told me Sweden has a lot of guilt because they cow towed to Hitler and let him cross through their country. He had no need to attack.

Yes, they did let the Germans cross Sweden for a short time. Hitler was advised not to invade Sweden, and because he did not want to waste valuable troops. The Swedes proved their neutrality by not letting Germany use Swedish airspace; when the Germans flew over Sweden to attack Norway, the Swedes fired back with anti-aircraft guns.

 

[CherubRam]

No one individual could kill 50 innocent Americans and wound another 53 without access to an automatic assault rifle with large magazines of ammunition.

Assault rifles were designed for only one purpose - so we shouldn't be surprised when disturbed "lone wolves" have access to them!

If you have four pistols that hold six bullets each, that is 24 bullets. If you also have pre-loaded cylinders for your pistols, that would make for a quick re-load. That is the same as a mini-14 or AR-15. However, the pistols would have more knock down power than the rifles. Those rifles are used for varmints.

 

[CherubRam]

If you drink coffee you can say and do more stupid things faster.

 

[exminister]

Machine guns are automatic weapons for military use. The term "assault weapon" is a term that applies to "ANYTHING" that is used to assault with. Automobiles are also dangerous, should we take them away also?

Try using your automobile as a weapon and run over people.
1) do you think they will take your automobile from you?
2) do you think it is wrong for them to take your automobile from you?
3) do you think as a result of your abuse of the automobile the government will take automobiles away from everyone?
4) do you think it is wrong to register your automobile with the government?

Well?

 

[CherubRam]

Well?

Well have another cup of coffee!

 

[CherubRam]

Well?

Proverbs 17:19 Whoever loves a quarrel loves sin. That's a good verse.

 

[CherubRam]

If everyone was afoot there would be less mischief.

 

[exminister]

Yes, they did let the Germans cross Sweden for a short time. Hitler was advised not to invade Sweden, and because he did not want to waste valuable troops. The Swedes proved their neutrality by not letting Germany use Swedish airspace; when the Germans flew over Sweden to attack Norway, the Swedes fired back with anti-aircraft guns.

Hitler needed Sweden for the iron ore they had already been selling to the Germans. As long as they as they maintained their neutrality (which they had no desire to break) he used them to support his military. Sweden at the end of the war was one of the wealthiest countries.
Hitler didn't need Sweden because he already had Norway. Norway has a very long coastline where Sweden could deliver goods and material to Germany. Sweden has very little coastline.
Germany was using Sweden to pass goods and materials to non-Allied countries.
There were "underground" Swede citizens who worked to fight the Nazis, like the French underground and you know how effective that was.


He was not afraid of Russia or England. Sweden was not threat.
How could Hitler be afraid of Swedish pee-shooters whose aim must have been been really bad when he had Blitzkriegs and overran nearly all of Europe.

Personal gun ownership in Sweden did not scare Hitler nor its' small military.

 

[exminister]

Try using your automobile as a weapon and run over people.
1) do you think they will take your automobile from you?
2) do you think it is wrong for them to take your automobile from you?
3) do you think as a result of your abuse of the automobile the government will take automobiles away from everyone?
4) do you think it is wrong to register your automobile with the government?

Well?

Proverbs 17:19 Whoever loves a quarrel loves sin. That's a good verse.

:dog: There goes CherubRam.

 

[Right Divider]

No one individual could kill 50 innocent Americans and wound another 53 without access to an automatic assault rifle with large magazines of ammunition.

Assault rifles were designed for only one purpose - so we shouldn't be surprised when disturbed "lone wolves" have access to them!

I guess that you're new to planet Earth: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing

 

[CherubRam]

Hitler needed Sweden for the iron ore they had already been selling to the Germans. As long as they as they maintained their neutrality (which they had no desire to break) he used them to support his military. Sweden at the end of the war was one of the wealthiest countries.
Hitler didn't need Sweden because he already had Norway. Norway has a very long coastline where Sweden could deliver goods and material to Germany. Sweden has very little coastline.
Germany was using Sweden to pass goods and materials to non-Allied countries.
There were "underground" Swede citizens who worked to fight the Nazis, like the French underground and you know how effective that was.


He was not afraid of Russia or England. Sweden was not threat.
How could Hitler be afraid of Swedish pee-shooters whose aim must have been been really bad when he had Blitzkriegs and overran nearly all of Europe.

Personal gun ownership in Sweden did not scare Hitler nor its' small military.

Lol

 

[Bradley D]

Right. And...?

It is the few bad ones who will get the guns. So taking guns away from all Americans will not solve the problem.

 

[rexlunae]

It is the few bad ones who will get the guns. So taking guns away from all Americans will not solve the problem.

The problem is, it's pretty hard to ensure that only the right people will get any product that's widely available.