WorthyNews:Biden Says He Wants Congress To Pass Gun Control In Lame-Duck Session

[The_Patriot21]

32 minutes ago, Slibhin said:

If only people would use guns for their non-violent purpose! 

Lol

Actually believe it or not, somewhere around 99% of gun owners do only use their guns for non violent uses. 

Most of the critters I've shot have four legs, the only two legged ones I've shot had feathers. 

The vast majority of gun owners are not violent and would never hurt anyone except in self defense. In fact I know several gun owners who wouldn't even use a gun then. 

These stats of course are something the media won't report on. Because it doesn't fit their narrative. The only thing they want to push is gun control measures that won't stop criminals from shooting innocent people, they only punish the law abiding.

 

[other one]

8 hours ago, JimmyB said:

Cutting-and-pasting propaganda will never convince thinking people.  The Washington Standard is hardly objective.  It is a right-wing rag.

That is so humorous I can hardly keep from laughing...    Anyone who disagrees with you is right-wing rag spreading propaganda.    And you obviously don't understand thinking skills.

[The_Patriot21]

2 hours ago, Slibhin said:

Do you guys ever stop blaming the media because you can't accept your views are unpopular? Is everyone out to get you?

I really don't care if you own a thousand guns and a bazooka. I just though it was an absurd statement, as if guns had a non-violent application. You may be shocked to hear this but shooting animals is also violence,  just not against people.

Lol guns have many many non violent applications. To say otherwise is quite frankly, ignorant. Anyone who actually knows anything about guns knows that.

This is why we blame the media... because they flat out lie to people.

But to be fair, we can't blame the media entirely. People can literally get up off their butts and walk down to the local sporting goods store or shooting range and talk to people and sign up for safety classes, or whatever, just do some actual basic research to find out for themselves just how dangerous and evil guns are, but they don't. It so much easier to blindly believe what their TV tells them to.

I have multiple firearms. None of which have ever been used in anger while in my possession. I've never even threatened to use one on another human.

Now, I do have a collection of old WW2 rifles that very likely did see combat...but it was before my time. I do have one of those scary black rifles the media likes to sensationalize.... usually only gets used on varmints like prairie dogs and the like.

Why? Because unlike what the media tells you the round the AR-15 uses isn't actually that great of a round on larger game. Sure it will work....but it's comparitively weak compared to my other rifles. Pretty much every bolt action rifle I own will do more damage to a human being then my AR. Yet, the media tells everyone it's the AR that is evil and they will ignore the hunting rifles. 

(I mean it's not like someone didn't hold the entire city of Washington D.C hostage for days with a bolt action rifle or anything)

Yet the media will tell you it will take people's heads off lol.

[Sparks]

9 hours ago, Slibhin said:

Do you guys ever stop blaming the media because you can't accept your views are unpopular? Is everyone out to get you?

I really don't care if you own a thousand guns and a bazooka. I just though it was an absurd statement, as if guns had a non-violent application. You may be shocked to hear this but shooting animals is also violence,  just not against people.

In the USA, merely possessing guns stops violence without the guns even being drawn or pointed.  Sometimes they are drawn, but not fired and that action prevented violence. This happens all over the USA every day but the media does not rush to tell you about it. Sometimes guns are drawn and fired, and that prevented a mass shooting or someone from being hurt or robbed or their home invaded whether or not the shots fired actually hit anyone.  When bad people hear the firepower around them, they most often change their plans and run away.

I live in a Constitutional Carry state in which anyone could be armed to the teeth and can carry a gun concealed, but you never know who might be carrying.  When you enter a peaceful restaurant setting and get a nice meal around this state, it's safe to assume half the people are armed.  Yet, no violence.  You finish your meal, and go home.  It's not the old west and, in fact, crimes drop because bad people realize that a lot of people are armed, but they are not sure who.  It's the 'no gun zones' that are raided by bad people.  Bad people know most are unarmed in those places, and that's where they target people.

Coincidentally, the most violent people seem to be some type of Democrats.  They are your ANTIFAs, BLMs, street gangs, mafias, dictators who kill millions, street robbers, burglars, the majority of your mass shooters, and so on, but they are collectively the ones who whine the most about lawful people having guns.  It seems a win/win to disarm Democrats since they are in agreement that they should be disarmed, and that they are also the ones most likely to be a part of very violent groups.  Everyone else should be allowed to lawfully carry guns.

[Justin Adams]

A few years ago I was an active FFL.

All the hype about guns is really dumb, especially if you have not even been to a carry seminar.

[other one]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

In the USA, merely possessing guns stops violence without the guns even being drawn or pointed

Actually in the state of Oklahoma, if you draw and point a gun at someone you can be charged with a felony if you don't use it.   Brandishing a gun is a serious thing.

Actually I personally don't like the constitutional right to carry without a permit.  There are about a million things one can do to get themselves in legal trouble that very few people understand that haven't been to a concealed carry class.

[The_Patriot21]

8 hours ago, Slibhin said:

I love the arrogance in assuming everyone who doesn't have your extremely libertarian views on boom sticks must be brainwashed by big bad librul medah. It couldn't possibly be because other people have well thought out reasons to believe what they do. Only you and people like you really think things through.

I don't live in your country and as much as it may shock you we don't watch American news much in Ireland. My husband used to have a term for guns and their fanatical supporters in America, I can't repeat it here but it has something to do with enhancing masculinity.

Regardless...

I don't care one iota about your guns. Maybe my one and a half paragraph post was too long to read all the way, but I clearly stated I don't care if you own a thousand guns and a bazooka. All I said was implying guns had a non-violent application was absurd.

I notice in your diatribe against the evil liberal news media you neglected to list what those non-violent application's were. Sure someone can invent a use for guns that isn't violent, like opening a beer can or shooting open a door. However one could also use a land mine to toss their salad, that doesn't make it a non-violent household tool.

Like I said, own as many as you like it doesn't affect me. I really don't care one way or the other.

You obviously do care or you wouldn't be responding -especially in the way that you do.

See all your doing is showing you know nothing about said guns...or to read my replies because I have mentioned at least one non violent use, such as hunting. Target shooting is also non violent. Both of which is what the vast majority of gun owners use them for. 

Several of my guns are collectors items that are rarely shot, I mean as a decorative item that's pretty non violent I'd say

I mean you can sit here and call me arrogant and accuse me of overcompensating all you want, all the personal attacks do is show you don't know what your talking about and you have to result to insults in order to make you feel better about yourself.

Oh, and another thing...I'm really not a libertarian. I personally have no use for that party. But seeing as your to busy trying to find reasons to look down on me, you wouldn't see that either.

[The_Patriot21]

9 hours ago, Slibhin said:

I love the arrogance in assuming everyone who doesn't have your extremely libertarian views on boom sticks must be brainwashed by big bad librul medah. It couldn't possibly be because other people have well thought out reasons to believe what they do. Only you and people like you really think things through.

I don't live in your country and as much as it may shock you we don't watch American news much in Ireland. My husband used to have a term for guns and their fanatical supporters in America, I can't repeat it here but it has something to do with enhancing masculinity.

Regardless...

I don't care one iota about your guns. Maybe my one and a half paragraph post was too long to read all the way, but I clearly stated I don't care if you own a thousand guns and a bazooka. All I said was implying guns had a non-violent application was absurd.

I notice in your diatribe against the evil liberal news media you neglected to list what those non-violent application's were. Sure someone can invent a use for guns that isn't violent, like opening a beer can or shooting open a door. However one could also use a land mine to toss their salad, that doesn't make it a non-violent household tool.

Like I said, own as many as you like it doesn't affect me. I really don't care one way or the other.

Oh, and by the way answer honestly, where do your views on gun control come from? Being Ireland I'm willing to bet you don't have any actual gun owners around. In fact have you ever even seen a gun, outside of on a policeman's belt?

Your husband where did he get his views? If not from the media, then where?

I'm willing to bet you won't answer this honestly as you didn't state as such in your original post, because I'm willing to bet my "arrogant" assumption is likely closer to the truth then your willing to bet. 

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, other one said:

Actually in the state of Oklahoma, if you draw and point a gun at someone you can be charged with a felony if you don't use it.   Brandishing a gun is a serious thing.

That sounds like a dumb law.   So if you draw your weapon, like a Gurkha, you have to draw blood by blowing the person away? 

Now if you mean to say that you cannot draw a gun on people for anything except defensive reasons, that is proper.  You cannot just wave your gun around and harass people or then you become the one assaulting others.  But defense is not limited to taking life.  A person can point the gun at an armed assailant and say, "Drop the gun.  Get on the ground," and then call the police while they hold them at gunpoint, for example.

2 hours ago, other one said:

Actually I personally don't like the constitutional right to carry without a permit.  There are about a million things one can do to get themselves in legal trouble that very few people understand that haven't been to a concealed carry class.

States that a force a permit are breaking the laws of the land (Constitution) from which all laws are derived.  States cannot simply convert a Constitutional Right into a privilege, and then charge a license fee (tax) to exercise that right. 

If you want case law, look up Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262, which said, “If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, the court ruled, “The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people,” and “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

[JimmyB]

13 hours ago, other one said:

That is so humorous I can hardly keep from laughing...    Anyone who disagrees with you is right-wing rag spreading propaganda.    And you obviously don't understand thinking skills.

One thing only that you said is accurate: Anyone who disagrees with you is right-wing rag spreading propaganda.