arma virumque cano (et alia)
That doesn't explain magazine bans, "assault weapon" bans, pretty much all the various bans you guys wants. Not to mention "buy backs":We don't want to round up guns off the street and melt them down... we want to get people who own guns off the street and burn them at the stake. Sick bastards.
Superbly stated, TS.
Thank you, sir.
Will you guys stop that disgusting love-fest?TS, is the part you put in italics a quote? Who said it?
Will you guys stop that disgusting love-fest?How unsurprising to discover that you find civility "disgusting."
MikeB: "TS, is the part you put in italics a quote? Who said it?"I said it. It's a demonstration to show that the meme in this poster only applies to some of the things gun control activists want. Sure they are pissed at people, and they are also pissed at guns. I don't know many gun control activists who are ok with people owning AR-15s and 30 round magazines- no matter how may safety courses they have taken, no matter how many background checks they passed, and even with the strictest of penalties for negligence. No AR-15s for all the people. “Ban them sumbitches”, they say.
And again, TS, superbly stated.
"burn them at the stake?" Where the hell does that come from. I would actually leave 50 million of you gun owners armed if I had my way.
It's those tools ( large mag. capacity, semi auto weapons, etc.) that allow the kill ratio to go up
It comes from the theme of this meme. They are saying gun control directs it's energy towards people and not guns, but then how does that explain "buy back" programs? Are they rounding up guns to "get them off the street" and destroying them by fire, or do they do that to people? Obviously my intent is to show how incorrect this meme is, and not to say you support genocide. You guys are "pissed at people" and guns.I find it interesting that you have revised your estimate of 60 million gun owners to the 100 million touted by the pro-rights side. Not that I haven't become accustom to your swings in your opinions, it just usually doesn't favor the pro-gun side. But still, you don't want to leave those 50 million people armed with AR-15s or the magazines that came with them, no matter how good those people are. It would show that you had actual confidence in your vetting program called "proper gun control" if you were actually willing to leave those good people alone.
TS, TS. Are you really that obtuse? Next, you'll be claiming index fingers kill people, not guns or people.Buy back programs are aimed at getting guns that people nether want or need. Guns of this type tend to get lost, stolen or sold to folks who probably shouldn't have them.Again, gun ownership has been declining for the last 3 decades. You still confuse number of guns with number of gunowners. The facts are out there. Of course, it's pretty plain: hunting and sport shooting has declined dramatically. That's why the NRA and the gun industry shifted their marketing away from hunting and into the self-defense/arming against the Govt. market.
Whew, that went right over your head, Jade.Ok, so you like "buy backs". Would you say that effort is directed a people, or is it about destroying as many guns as they can no questions asked?
Jade: "Guns of this type tend to get lost, stolen or sold to folks who probably shouldn't have them."Like sold to the kind of people who are "pissed at guns" so they melt them down? I know, it's a shame.
Leave it to TS to display such dishonesty, second only to SS.
"You guys are "pissed at people" and guns."TS, you're being stubbornly unreasonable again. The problem addressed by many of these initiatives is GUN AVAILABILITY. Buy backs, destroying guns, background checks, just about all of it, is about reducing gun availability to unfit people.You really make it a drag when you turn the thread into a tedious struggle to communicate simple and obvious ideas.
If were about "unfit people" they wouldn't feel the need to destroy guns. Clearly that is about "reducing gun availability" for everyone. Same with "assault weapon" bans. Those do not fit the theme of the poster.
If were about "unfit people" they wouldn't feel the need to destroy guns. Clearly that is about "reducing gun availability" for everyone.Right again, TS and as you have already pointed out, if it were about "unfit people," Mikeb wouldn't derive such ineffable glee from saying "ban them sumbitches" over and over again.
Kurt, "ban them sumbitches" refers to toy and replica guns. Reducing gun availability to everyone is one of the few ways gun availability can be reduced to criminals and the mentally ill. That's because of the loose gun laws which make it easy as pie to get guns if you're a criminal or mental case.
It sounds like you are saying you demand various bans because we have "loose gun laws"- i.e because we don't have "MikeB's Proper Gun Control" to keep guns from flowing from the good guys to the bad guys. Is that about right? So why then are these bans included in your list of "proper gun control"?
"bans you guys wants"Showing your education again, HA HA HA
It seems being called out for saying "To bad you can't spell" struck a nerve."To bad you can't spell".... classic.
It's funny to watch a hypocrite (YOU) use spelling errors as his main gotcha point when he commits the same error himself.
Like I said, I didn't start that. You did by saying "To bad you can't spell". If you didn't make a spelling error while admonishing my spelling, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You, Gunsmoke, George all like to use the spelling tactic, because liars like you, that's all you got. And no, I didn't start this, you did. And no it wasn't on this post, but an earlier p[ost. No on with your lies.
Here is the post where it started. Go look again to see who started it:http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-bush-cheney-legacy.htmlIt’s not surprising that the people who are right provide links, while those who make stuff up do not.