ADVERTISEMENT

The reality of gun control

There are 21 reasons in Uvalde, 28 at Sandy Hook, 61 at Vegas, etc, etc, etc. Below is a list from 2012-2019...doesn't include assault rifle mass shootings in '20, '21 and '22.
  • The 2019 Jersey City, New Jersey shooting
  • The Midland-Odessa interstate shooting in Texas in 2019
  • The 2019 Dayton shooting in Ohio
  • The Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh in 2018
  • The Waffle House shooting in Nashville in 2018
  • The 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
  • The 2018 Melcroft, Pennsylvania, shooting
  • The shootings at Rancho Tehama Reserve in California in 2017
  • The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting in 2017
  • The 2017 Las Vegas shooting
  • The 2017 Plano, Texas, shooting
  • The 2017 Lincoln County, Mississippi, shootings
  • The Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016
  • The 2015 San Bernardino, California, attack
  • The 2015 Colorado Springs, Colorado, shooting
  • The 2013 Santa Monica, California, shooting
  • The 2013 homicides in South Valley, New Mexico
  • The 2012 Webster, New York, shooting
  • The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012

I guess you mean advanced weapons would be available. Not sure what this has do with owning assault weapons.

I never advocated taking guns away. I would make them illegal....and stop the sale, but I agree; going after them would be a debacle. Would offer a voluntary buy back.

My guess is any armed govt overthrow is going to lead to conflict.
you wouldn't take them away but make them illegal? there are 20 million ar15's in this country, at least. there are probably 5 times that number of semi auto pistols.


you are going to turn those people into fellons?
 
FTs-Ffn-QVIAgla-Lj.jpg
And that's when God gave everybody a rock and said "only a good guy with a rock can stop a bad guy with a rock."
 
you wouldn't take them away but make them illegal? there are 20 million ar15's in this country, at least. there are probably 5 times that number of semi auto pistols.


you are going to turn those people into fellons?
I would stop the sale and make it illegal to carry and offer voluntary buybacks. IMO, trying to collect these weapons would be a debacle and mission impossible.

This isn't difficult. The bottom line for me - enough folks and especially children have been mass-murdered with these weapons that I no longer see the need for them. Not everyone agrees - I understand that.
 
I would stop the sale and make it illegal to carry and offer voluntary buybacks. IMO, trying to collect these weapons would be a debacle and mission impossible.

This isn't difficult. The bottom line for me - enough folks and especially children have been mass-murdered with these weapons that I no longer see the need for them. Not everyone agrees - I understand that.
Have enough folks been murdered by hand guns or no?
 
Have enough folks been murdered by hand guns or no?
Is that the weapon of choice of mass murderers? Those weapons aren't as deadly as assault rifles; probably the reason they aren't the weapon of choice for whack-job mass murderers.

For me, handguns make a ton more sense for self-defense than the AR-15.
 
Is that the weapon of choice of mass murderers?

In some cases but neither have they been the weapon of choice for a hostile media that is trying their best to affect public opinion.

If something kills, say 50 times the amount that something else does, isn't that a bigger problem?
 
If something kills, say 50 times the amount that something else does, isn't that a bigger problem?
Are you referring to something being used by private citizens to intentionally kill other private citizens? Just attempting to stay within the context of this discussion.
 
Are you referring to something being used by private citizens to intentionally kill other private citizens? Just attempting to stay within the context of this discussion.
The 2A is the context of the discussion. I don't know the intent behind the cause of the deaths I am referring to.
 
Is that the weapon of choice of mass murderers? Those weapons aren't as deadly as assault rifles; probably the reason they aren't the weapon of choice for whack-job mass murderers.

For me, handguns make a ton more sense for self-defense than the AR-15.
So what you’re saying is some murder weapons are ok even though they kill more people because whack jobs
 
There are 21 reasons in Uvalde, 28 at Sandy Hook, 61 at Vegas, etc, etc, etc. Below is a list from 2012-2019...doesn't include assault rifle mass shootings in '20, '21 and '22.
  • The 2019 Jersey City, New Jersey shooting
  • The Midland-Odessa interstate shooting in Texas in 2019
  • The 2019 Dayton shooting in Ohio
  • The Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh in 2018
  • The Waffle House shooting in Nashville in 2018
  • The 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
  • The 2018 Melcroft, Pennsylvania, shooting
  • The shootings at Rancho Tehama Reserve in California in 2017
  • The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting in 2017
  • The 2017 Las Vegas shooting
  • The 2017 Plano, Texas, shooting
  • The 2017 Lincoln County, Mississippi, shootings
  • The Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016
  • The 2015 San Bernardino, California, attack
  • The 2015 Colorado Springs, Colorado, shooting
  • The 2013 Santa Monica, California, shooting
  • The 2013 homicides in South Valley, New Mexico
  • The 2012 Webster, New York, shooting
  • The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012

I guess you mean advanced weapons would be available. Not sure what this has do with owning assault weapons.

I never advocated taking guns away. I would make them illegal....and stop the sale, but I agree; going after them would be a debacle. Would offer a voluntary buy back.

My guess is any armed govt overthrow is going to lead to conflict.
now do the same list of shootings utilizing hand guns. for ease, just multiply your examples above by 100; hell, maybe 1000.

see, this is the issue. AR's are scary looking, they've been used in a fraction of the number of murders that hand guns have. give you idiots the leniency to ban those scarry looking rifles and once that's done, you'll come back with . . . "well, 'assault rifles' have been banned and the number of murders haven't decreased. we must start looking at hand guns. we must ban hand guns!"

it'll never end until you're tied up on your hands and knees with an apple sticking out of your mouth and the governments crank shoved up your ass before you realize how bad of a mistake you've made by blindly following the MSM and your feelings, all the while attempting to mutter out the words, "if only we wouldn't have banned all weapons . . . "
 
now do the same list of shootings utilizing hand guns. for ease, just multiply your examples above by 100; hell, maybe 1000.

see, this is the issue. AR's are scary looking, they've been used in a fraction of the number of murders that hand guns have. give you idiots the leniency to ban those scarry looking rifles and once that's done, you'll come back with . . . "well, 'assault rifles' have been banned and the number of murders haven't decreased. we must start looking at hand guns. we must ban hand guns!"

it'll never end until you're tied up on your hands and knees with an apple sticking out of your mouth and the governments crank shoved up your ass before you realize how bad of a mistake you've made by blindly following the MSM and your feelings, all the while attempting to mutter out the words, "if only we wouldn't have banned all weapons . . . "
Bingo. I can fire my 45 just as quick as an ar and I’m not shooting targets 500 yards away during a school shooting. If the libs were truly honest and they truly were against gun violence they would be screaming for a total gun ban. Those that do have more of my respect than people like Chevy that have a bull crap argument
 
Last edited:
Democrats are scared
I would stop the sale and make it illegal to carry and offer voluntary buybacks. IMO, trying to collect these weapons would be a debacle and mission impossible.

This isn't difficult. The bottom line for me - enough folks and especially children have been mass-murdered with these weapons that I no longer see the need for them. Not everyone agrees - I understand that.
Screw that. We are not Australia

That's a declaration of war on the people
 
These left wing lunatics are after the most popular guns in America. Not just AR15's. Don't be fooled by them.

they are dangerous. You don't just give up the constitituion because thungs can't control themselves in Democrat cities. Or nut jobs shoot up schools.

That is not even what this about it. This is about them taking control.
 
These left wing lunatics are after the most popular guns in America. Not just AR15's. Don't be fooled by them.

they are dangerous. You don't just give up the constitituion because thungs can't control themselves in Democrat cities. Or nut jobs shoot up schools.

That is not even what this about it. This is about them taking control.
You're a lying idiot trumptard oath breaker.
 
This is a complete hoax, although the look into the psyche of the writer is interesting. Wonder why they spent so much time thinking up those ideas.
psyche of the writer is interesting, indeed. they're spot on with A and they've nailed all of B with exception of "siezing power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible" and "confiscating [firearms] and leaving the population helpless". give those some time to either occur, or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyMUfan
This is a complete hoax, although the look into the psyche of the writer is interesting. Wonder why they spent so much time thinking up those ideas.

Well, communism is a hoax that the ruling class perpetuates on its subjects. While the list may not actually have been found in Duesseldorf, what is necessarily inaccurate about it?

01G4MQC4B0KH20NFEWGWVJHHBC.jpeg
 
@HerdandHokies

You do realize there is a similar list included in the Congressional Record. And it was introduced by a Democrat. Look it up if you like or I can do it for you.

BTW did you research the House Post Office and banking scandals?
 
@HerdandHokies

You do realize there is a similar list included in the Congressional Record. And it was introduced by a Democrat. Look it up if you like or I can do it for you.

BTW did you research the House Post Office and banking scandals?
Then it was a hoax when a Democrat entered it into the congressional record too.

I just googled it, as I was 4 at the time and more interested in Barney than Congress. I see a Republican was convicted of bribery, and Newt publicized it despite writing 22 bad checks himself, including to the IRS. And some Republican from Arkansas managed to write 996 bad checks. Is there something else I ought be pulling from the incident? :D
 
Greed and chevy demonstrate on here every day that it's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: KyMUfan
Liberals, always focusing on the exceptions and never seeing the rule...



At first glance I thought you posted Barney IN Congress...

Either way, that explains a lot...😉😅
For real the postal thing seems a lot worse than the check thing, and the postal thing had only Democrats involved from what I can tell.

I am interested in what you think of the check kiting thing, because it seems like (from a 10 minute glance) a general misunderstanding of what the bank of congress was and how it operated was exploited for political gain.
 
For real the postal thing seems a lot worse than the check thing, and the postal thing had only Democrats involved from what I can tell.

I am interested in what you think of the check kiting thing, because it seems like (from a 10 minute glance) a general misunderstanding of what the bank of congress was and how it operated was exploited for political gain.

Both were significant abuses that I believe were the result of one party having control for over 40 years or whatever it was. Tom Foley became the face of that abuse and Congress was "de-Foleyated" as a result. I believe that was unprecedented for a sitting Speaker to be defeated.

Basically I believe the House Bank allowed its members to carry very large overdrafts, in essence interest free loans at a time when rates were up, for extended periods of time.

Both parties seemed to have participants, with the overwhelming majority being Democrats. Interestingly many of the participants continued to serve in Congress for years. Our local Congressman Chris Perkins actually served jail time for his involvement. Never understood why he and a few others were convicted and so many others weren't.


BTW I've been told by many he is actually sincere and effective as a minister.
 
From what I can tell the bank was a cluster****. They took up to 2 months to record deposits and allowed people to overdraft as long as it was less than their next paycheck. They did it with pencil and paper, though I don’t know how common computerized banking was in 1992 (I would assume very common, but I don’t know.)

There were over 400 people who overdrafted, but they drew a (pretty arbitrary) line in the sand at 8 total months overdrafted and called out everyone who was above that, most of whom were Democrats. But I think it’s a fair question (that I don’t know the answer to) whether where to draw that line was a non-political decision, or if Newt and friends picked a time frame that would make the Democrats look as bad as possible. Draw it at 6 months and what’s the split?

From what I can tell, I don’t think anybody caught any charges for the banking scandal itself, but the investigation into it revealed things that got people charged.
 
From what I can tell the bank was a cluster****. They took up to 2 months to record deposits and allowed people to overdraft as long as it was less than their next paycheck. They did it with pencil and paper, though I don’t know how common computerized banking was in 1992 (I would assume very common, but I don’t know.)

There were over 400 people who overdrafted, but they drew a (pretty arbitrary) line in the sand at 8 total months overdrafted and called out everyone who was above that, most of whom were Democrats. But I think it’s a fair question (that I don’t know the answer to) whether where to draw that line was a non-political decision, or if Newt and friends picked a time frame that would make the Democrats look as bad as possible. Draw it at 6 months and what’s the split?

From what I can tell, I don’t think anybody caught any charges for the banking scandal itself, but the investigation into it revealed things that got people charged.

Interested to hear where you got this information from as it appears to place more of the blame on the sloppiness of the House Bank itself rather than the actual guilty abusers of the system.

In 1992 the annual congressional salary was around $130k, or say $11k per month. Even at the 8 months that's an approximately $90k interest free loan.

At one time I saw a list of the overdrafts by amount. I wasn't able to find anything current but this is a pretty good article.


"the 66 most egregious offenders wrote about 20,000 rubber checks with a face value of $10,846,856."

This averages about $164k each, well more that their respective annual salaries.
 
Why don't Democrats really say why they are for gun control? If they cared for their own people they would enforce laws and go after gang bangers in their big cities they control. They don't. THere are existing laws on the books. In fact, many of those areas have some of the strictest gun laws.


They are wants guns to go away because it gives them even more power.
 
Why don't Democrats really say why they are for gun control? If they cared for their own people they would enforce laws and go after gang bangers in their big cities they control. They don't. THere are existing laws on the books. In fact, many of those areas have some of the strictest gun laws.


They are wants guns to go away because it gives them even more power.
You're a lying idiot trumptard oath breaker.
 
ADVERTISEMENT