why the left hates guns

[The_Dude 1,142]

Then you misunderstand the 2nd Amendment.

I understand it quite well, It is you and your ilk who have the comprehension problems Slim.

So still, not so much to do with the guns themselves, huh?

Hmm.

As I explained to Gary, in my response, Guns are a constant in the equation. If you remove them from the equation, violent crime will plummet.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or, as if his word is supported by facts and figures that you're too lazy to look up for yourself. I can't help it you're both ignorant of facts and too lazy to formulate your own opinions based on logical thought. You're fitting in to america quite nicely! Way to go.

Look, I know you're capable of rational thought and logical processeses (since you've taken a stance on a hypothetical issue) so could you just do me a favor and apply that in this case? I mean, it's totally up to you, but it would help you stop looking so much like a sheep all the time.

It could even save your life someday. The sky is falling according to that other thread. Global warming is coming!

Usually how these things work is that if you have knowledge and have the time and desire to demonstrate it with the view of dominating an opponent then you use it to prove your point - it being your best weapon after all.

If you won't do that - then these threads are nothing more than personality contests.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

As I explained to Gary, in my response, Guns are a constant in the equation. If you remove them from the equation, violent crime will plummet.

There is only evidence of deaths dropping.

[slim 1,514]

Not anymore. I did once. Why?

Because the MP-5 is really cool in video games... not so much in real life.

You can by full auto versions that predate the ban....depending on your state.

In fact I think I just found one for 7600.

Maybe you can buy $7600 submachine guns... but I can't. Nor would I if I could.

A young man said to his horny wife: "What should we do, darling? Eat or have sex?" And she replied: "You can choose. But there's not a crumb in the house."

Sounds like my wife.

No gary, you misunderstand my position. Under my premise, I was under the impression that guns are a constant, and I responded as such. You would have to be a complete moron to think that crime statistics wouldn't vastly plummet if you removed guns from the equation.

So if you removed guns from Vermont, crime would go down?

Before you get all excited, wouldn't the poor folks in Chicago simply use other means to rob and kill each other, much like they did before guns were popular?

I'm pretty sure that the act of coitus need not involve a ham sandwich.

But it's so much better with a ham sandwich.

Especially when it's like, "b!tch, make me a sammich."

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Slim hasn't made any points either, I don't see you trying to take him to task.

Since you mention it though, I haven't seen you make any points either - all you've done is pose questions to others and demand answers.

Rob made my points for me, and I knew a liberal would if I posed the right question. (It is also why YOU don't answer it, which makes you a click or two more clever than Rob, or a click or two less honest) Ready4One just ran away. Crime rates are not affected by gun laws. Crime rates are affected by factors other than gun laws related to the particular area chosen to study. The demographics of UK are different than Vermont which are different than Chicago which are different than Quebec which are different than Australia. The crime rates in all those places vary. The best thing about anyone can do is to make their demographics like Vermont, but that involves a lot of things we aren't willing to do (or able to do).

We could try to duplicate SOME of those demograhics. 81% high school graduation rate would be a good start. But those things take time and money and require thought and effort and some unpopular decisions and choices...politically unpopular, and some patience to wait for results, it will not happen overnight. As you said, the answer is not quick and easy.

But it is quick and easy to say "we need more gun laws"!!!!!! And cheap too! Passing a gun law takes no money, unless you count ENFORCING it, but they have no intent of that either. The intent is one of two things...

1. Smoke and mirrors. Make people THINK they are "doing something" about crime without raising taxes, pissing off the teacher's unions, or cutting welfare programs. This works well in certain "safe" congressional districts, ironically the high crime areas, usually.

2. Each restriction reduces the number of people owning guns, which reduces the clout of gunowner organizations which reduces the chance being tossed out of office, which reduces the chance of resistance to government control of people's lives. People who do not call 911 simply don;t fit the mold of government dependency.

Neither will reduce crime. Neither CAN reduce crime.

And your points are?

[slim 1,514]

I understand it quite well

Obviously you do not if you think it's about hunting or anything other than violent overthrow of the government.

it being your best weapon after all.

I have pretty good weapons already. You don't have to believe me on that either.

There is only evidence of deaths dropping.

Violent crime rates would probably stay pretty much where they are now. I doubt we'd even see a drop in deaths since the UK and AUS didn't see a significant drop after "pseudo" gun bans.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rob made my points for me, and I knew a liberal would if I posed the right question. (It is also why YOU don't answer it, which makes you a click or two more clever than Rob, or a click or two less honest) Ready4One just ran away. Crime rates are not affected by gun laws. Crime rates are affected by factors other than gun laws related to the particular area chosen to study. The demographics of UK are different than Vermont which are different than Chicago which are different than Quebec which are different than Australia. The crime rates in all those places vary. The best thing about anyone can do is to make their demographics like Vermont, but that involves a lot of things we aren't willing to do (or able to do).

We could try to duplicate SOME of those demograhics. 81% high school graduation rate would be a good start. But those things take time and money and require thought and effort and some unpopular decisions and choices...politically unpopular, and some patience to wait for results, it will not happen overnight. As you said, the answer is not quick and easy.

But it is quick and easy to say "we need more gun laws"!!!!!! And cheap too! Passing a gun law takes no money, unless you count ENFORCING it, but they have no intent of that either. The intent is one of two things...

1. Smoke and mirrors. Make people THINK they are "doing something" about crime without raising taxes, pissing off the teacher's unions, or cutting welfare programs. This works well in certain "safe" congressional districts, ironically the high crime areas, usually.

2. Each restriction reduces the number of people owning guns, which reduces the clout of gunowner organizations which reduces the chance being tossed out of office, which reduces the chance of resistance to government control of people's lives. People who do not call 911 simply don;t fit the mold of government dependency.

Neither will reduce crime. Neither CAN reduce crime.

And your points are?

Gary, you really love pontificating without having the slightest idea of what anyone actually thinks.

I haven't claimed anywhere (or ever actually) that the availability of guns is the singular cause of crime - in fact, it was fairly clear in the post you responded to that I don't think that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have pretty good weapons already. You don't have to believe me on that either.

Not here you don't - or indeed in the thread from the other week where you laid claim to "fact" and posted the same unsupported statement over and over and over again for a period of hours without once actually ponying up any specifics.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Obviously you do not if you think it's about hunting or anything other than violent overthrow of the government.

As I have said ad nauseam, you lack of comprehension is disturbing. No, I don't think that the 2nd amendment is solely for hunting, but I think your fundamental misconception about the 2nd amendment is patently wrong.

Rob made my points for me, and I knew a liberal would if I posed the right question. (It is also why YOU don't answer it, which makes you a click or two more clever than Rob, or a click or two less honest) Ready4One just ran away. Crime rates are not affected by gun laws. Crime rates are affected by factors other than gun laws related to the particular area chosen to study. The demographics of UK are different than Vermont which are different than Chicago which are different than Quebec which are different than Australia. The crime rates in all those places vary. The best thing about anyone can do is to make their demographics like Vermont, but that involves a lot of things we aren't willing to do (or able to do).

We could try to duplicate SOME of those demograhics. 81% high school graduation rate would be a good start. But those things take time and money and require thought and effort and some unpopular decisions and choices...politically unpopular, and some patience to wait for results, it will not happen overnight. As you said, the answer is not quick and easy.

But it is quick and easy to say "we need more gun laws"!!!!!! And cheap too! Passing a gun law takes no money, unless you count ENFORCING it, but they have no intent of that either. The intent is one of two things...

1. Smoke and mirrors. Make people THINK they are "doing something" about crime without raising taxes, pissing off the teacher's unions, or cutting welfare programs. This works well in certain "safe" congressional districts, ironically the high crime areas, usually.

2. Each restriction reduces the number of people owning guns, which reduces the clout of gunowner organizations which reduces the chance being tossed out of office, which reduces the chance of resistance to government control of people's lives. People who do not call 911 simply don;t fit the mold of government dependency.

Neither will reduce crime. Neither CAN reduce crime.

And your points are?

Gary, you really should learn how to draw conclussions and how to properly read what people wrote. It helps also not to jump to conclussions. I made your point for you? You haven't even tried to make one.

[slim 1,514]

your fundamental misconception about the 2nd amendment is patently wrong.

You haven't told me how it's wrong.

Are you saying the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee our right to reatin arms necessary to overthrow the government?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"arms necessary to overthrow the government" - somehow I don't think that a few pistols and rifles really cut it.

What about a cruise missile?

[slim 1,514]

I don't think that a few pistols and rifles really cut it.

Actually, they do.

But, since you brought it up... sure. We should be allowed to have cruise missiles.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And every child in America should be given 3 nucular missiles.

[slim 1,514]

And every child in America should be given 3 nucular missiles.

If we're paying GM and Lehman bros... why not?

Leave no child behind!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not anymore. I did once. Why? You can by full auto versions that predate the ban....depending on your state.

In fact I think I just found one for 7600.

I would expect to find very few transferable full auto MP5s if any. In order to be transferable an automatic weapon must have been manufactured before 1986 and have been registered and "in the system". There just were not that many in the civilian pipeline at the time. Also $7600 for a transferable MP5 sounds too cheap. If it is true I will buy it tomorrow. Better investment than gold at that price.

THE 1994 TO 2004 moratorium on the manufacture of weapons whose looks were not politically correct (it was not an assault weapons "ban" as nothing was "banned" and none of them were assault weapons) did not affect REAL assault weapons which are automatic NOT semi-automatic. There is no such thing as a "semi-auto assault weapon" The terms are mutually exclusive. It is an oxymoron. The uselss moratorium died 6 years ago and there is no longer any such thing as "pre ban" or "post ban" except in some collectors niche. The term has no legal meaning anymore.

In other news... Maxine Waters, a huge supporter of gun control will soon be out on her "urban dynamics" @ss for corruption. Somehoe I don't think that is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said she would "drain the swamp"