Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

The 2013 poll is BS.

Quote:

"Pollsters telephoned 1,110 adults between Jan. 11 through Jan. 15" ..........

It doesn't say 1110 NRA members.

The title of the article says "NRA members support Background checks". How many of these 1100 were actual NRA members? There is no list of them, so these were not 1110 NRA members. If you phoned 1110 households right now, how many of them would be NRA members?

Hell I have spoken at NRA conventions larger than 1100 members, believe me, they are for no further regulation. We understand that the lefts vision of a future gun free America will come in incremental legislation. They can't sell an outright gun ban to America, so they know it has to be done in small steps.

Double talk all you want...... Read the quotes of the founders. It's clear that they intended for all "the people" to be able to bear arms.

 

I'll bet you lunch tomorrow you'll go to sleep before you finish reading this post and won't be able to tell us what it said.

First off, the fastest growing class of firearms shootings are mass shootings. But virtually ALL mass shootings are done by only TWO classes of people:

1) Jihadists

2) People who have been under the care of a psychologist, psychiatrist and almost always on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs (simply put Xanax, Zoloft, Prozac, etc.)

It used to be that in this country we stood for something. Today, we're so hung up on the affirmation (I don't care what color you are... blah, blah, blah) that we no longer stand for anything. We allow people whose ideologies are 180 degrees opposite of what America stands for to participate with us equally. What happens?

Omar Mateen, the son of a Muslim that ran for the Afghan presidency, shoots and kills 50 people in Florida. Mateen, himself, thought he was some kind of martyr for ISIS

Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who was convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder was the son of Muslim parents. For at least six years, Hasan's coworkers were "concerned" with his behavior.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed three people and injured more than 250 more in the Boston Marathon Bombing. They, like their mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva were all Muslims.

ALL of the people who flew into the Twin Towers on 9 / 11 were... yep - at least second generation Muslims coming to the U.S. "legally."

You can tell me all about background checks and vetting processes, but I know first hand the extent we already go to let people be citizens of the U.S. and how extensive it is to get into the military. It didn't freaking work because there are some people that you cannot change. The Muslims are 180 degrees opposite of what our nation was founded on. I think you know what my argument there is.

Moving along, you name the non-Islamist mass shooter and I will tell you the SSRI they were on.

America is operating on a false premise. Doctors listen to your problem and their FIRST course of action is to put their patients on drugs. If you're sick, it's drug therapy first; say you're going to hurt yourself... it's drug therapy first. If you want to apply for Disability when you have conditions like Asperger Syndrome, you have to be on drugs in order to get the checks. Even when a doctor knows that you don't need drugs, they are mandated, by protocol, before any other action can be taken.

The known side effects of SSRIs are homicidal and suicidal tendencies. Google mass shooters and SSRIs.

We have to change that dynamic. Drugs should be the last avenue, NOT the first. Drugs should not be required in instances where they are inappropriate. Then, if they are administered, patients should be in protective custody. You expect people with a mental imbalance to be responsible and take drugs as prescribed. Can we be any more foolish!!!! We have to hold doctors and the mental health community accountable for the drugs they prescribe.

Now I just took thousands of violent deaths off the table and you probably fell asleep five paragraphs back.

 

Correct.......I do not believe there should be any restrictions at all on what types of firearms one can purchase. Restrictions on who can purchase.......yes.

 

No, you answer. What do you consider an overpowered firearm vs an underpowered? Just provide a simple example, that if you can. Plus what is "sensible" self defense? Do explain that one. Your fund of knowledge is sorely lacking. If you're going to converse with us, then know what you're talking about. It's obvious you do not.

 

Others are able to just answer. I believe 3 or 4 now have stated they simply feel there should be no restrictions, any and all should be able to possess any sort of gun or weapon under the 2nd, end of story. Sounds to me like you want to say the same but just can't.

Regarding the fire analogy, I suppose we should have no restrictions on arson or any other sort of preparedness as look at all the fires ruining lives, houses. Can't stop it.

 

Quit with this (*)(*)(*)(*), please. I'm aware you think I know nothing, never claimed otherwise. You think I'd ask people like you about any of this if I knew it all, had all the answers, like you do? What would I need to ask here for? So either answer with what you know, your opinion, as others are doing, or move on.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, thanks.

Please explain.

- - - Updated - - -

You may be surprised, but I was able to read the whole thing and comprehend the whole thing, no problem.

Thanks for answering.

 

In NYS & NYC, it is legal to use lethal force to stop Arson & Rape.

 

First that is an oxymoron. strictness in law is not sensible.

Without knowing the laws as they are, changing them will not help.

There isn't one.

It isn't bad it is just stupid. there is no gunshow loophole. As for "stuff like that" I don't know what that is.

They Do.

Well the so called "gunshow loophole doesn't exist and they already do background checks. So the only thing you proposed is "stuff like that." That isn't very specific.Also giving up liberty for safety is a nasty proposition.

So like tanks and APVs?

Nobody would ever need a Lamborghini, or an antique burled walnut kitchen table. People however want those things they should be allowed to buy them if they have the means. it is the land of the free.

Don't know. Btw what do you mean by machine gun? a fully automatic fire arm? I believe you have to have a permit to own such a thing.

Not possible it is illegal to carry them. So carrying such a thing would necessarily mean you weren't a law abiding citizen.

What people want them for is to go have fun at the gun range. I haven't heard of a single active shooter event with a fully auto.

 

If you understood what I just said, you will be the very first since I've been on this board. The left has never understood it because for them, the issue is NOT about saving lives, it is about gun control. In short, it is about control. They have ignored my overtures to do something constructive for years because the MSM is not covering the issues I bring to the table. The right won't do anything because they have become reactionaries, unable to generate an original thought and work through grass roots efforts to put these issues on the table. Thanks for understanding

 

Spare me your BS. YOU are off topic on your own thread. You've got your head handed to you intellectually and you've changed the dialogue from "trying to understand why law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control" to "restrictions." I suggest you make a new thread.

I don't "think" you have much gun knowledge, I know it. The following is YOUR opening statement:

BobbyJoe: "Anyway, I don't understand why a law abiding citizen would have a problem with sensible and strict gun laws."


You've still never defined "sensible" especially since you use this worn out code word to the point of exhaustion. Since when does sensible and strict go together? You've avoid defining what you consider to be an overpowered weapon vs an underpowered one.
Then there is your nonsense about machine guns, trying to frame an argument for gun control with fully auto weapons in the mix when this is a non-issue. A classic anti tactic.

You're not looking for any answers here. You're liberal dogma/religion has given you all the answers you need or want.

Lets pose a series of questions. What will you do when the militant arm of the Democratic Party, namely the BLM take the big hint and decide to visit the suburbs ( or where you live) as suggested in Milwaukee? Do you think your liberalism will protect you? Will you try to run away or just submit? Would you try to fight back and with what? Would you prefer a 22 or an AR 15 in this type of situation? How's that for sensible.

 

If you want to ask a series of questions, start your own thread. Why do I have to do anything you say, or listen to anything you say. I'm not off-topic in my thread, I'm trying to understand where some people are coming from. But even if I was off-topic, who cares? I can do what I want and ask what I want and say what I want. You preach whatever the hell you preach about freedoms and you won't let me do what I want in a *******n thread?? Give me a break. All I'm doing in this thread is asking questions and trying to get a bead on what the hell it is YOU and the people who think like you...WANT.

So either answer like others have done or go crap on someone else....please.

 

The point with that was that guy keeps saying nothing can be done about anything. What's the point of trying to stop things that can't be stopped....fire, violence, murder, cancer, and any other sort of horribleness...can't stop it, so why bother. I suppose you could add all the horrible liberal leftie democrats and their dogma, that can't be stopped, so why bother. What could anyone do, use lethal force against liberal dogma?

 

Yes, I looked it up and saw a lot of stuff about Muslims and SSRIs.

So what would be done? Ban Muslims and SSRIs? What about the millions of Muslims who are just regular people and the millions on SSRIs who don't murder anyone? How do you know it's the SSRIs that are triggering the murders, and not their mental illness? Also, what about the mentally ill's access to guns? No restrictions?

 

Gun deaths are rather irrelavant. For one you should be focused on from in general, and for another when gun control is implemented, rarely does it affect gun crimes in the first place. You have to look at violent crimes yes before and after gun control.

 

Does it matter? To you I mean. Because what I got in my safe its none of your business.

 

The AR is anything but overpowered. Would you be happy if my defense weapon was an M1 garand? The .223/5.56 out performs pistol ammo for home defense as it penatrates less walls and can carry more ammo than pistols. Being a long gun you are more accurate with it and being light in both wieght and recoil any family member you consider mature enough can adequately defend themselves with little training.

 

Someone stated that the point of the 2nd Amendment was to defend against a tyrannical government, so I was just asking what sort of weapons people were going to use to do that.

No one has to tell me what they've personally got stocked up unless they want to, obviously.

 

Laws to punish criminal offenses are not the same as arbitrary restrictions enacting for the purpose of interfering with the legal exercise of a constitutional right.

 

I could say any law is arbitrary. Can't yell fire. It's neither here nor there. As far as our constitution goes, you "have no skin in the game", but through all these posts of yours, though you don't answer directly but continue to dance around it, one can only assume that you believe all laws and restrictions beyond the 2nd Amendment are merely arbitrary and do nothing but interfere with the legal exercise to own and possess any sort of weapon.

So thanks.

 

And no one is likely to tell you either. I'll make an exception here and tell you what I use most often for concealed carry in terms of handguns. These are not for fighting the government, just Democrats and besides they're handguns. First is a 5 shot Ruger LCR 38 snubby with Trijicon front sight and CT laser grip. Very quick, very small, very sneaky very deadly. I never leave home without it. Second is a S&W 3913 9mm 8+1 in the pipe. It's an older weapon now and will replaced, most likely by a Sig P239 or Walther PPS. Nevertheless, slender, reliable, accurate. I've never been a fan of slide mounted safeties, however the feature makes it possible to pocket carry if forced. Not for amateurs. Thirdly, a Glock 26 9mm 4th generation, with extended 12 round magazines. Perfection in a small package. As accurate as the bigger G19 with near the capacity in a small perfection. The G always rides in a holster, unless I want to end up like Plaxico Burris. I use a variety of holsters, depending upon the situation and ammo changes according to the time of year. I'm very fond of Trijicon Nite Sights and Remora holsters.

 

I know that scientists have given us the known side effects of SSRIs. And your question was answered earlier. You chose to fall asleep before you read the answer. We know that EVERY mass shooting is done by either a jihadist or a person under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist and almost always on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs.

Now, notice that I'm only talking about mass shooters and gun violence. How many other acts of the misuse of firearms are done by people taking SSRIs? We don't really know since nobody does any studies on the subject; however, common sense dictates that if the SSRIs and mass shootings have an undeniable link, then all the other deaths by firearms probably have a high occurrence by people on SSRIs.

Just a couple of weeks ago, a young man in the Atlanta area killed two teens. He has Asperger's Syndrome... AND watch the news, those people are REQUIRED to take SSRIs in order to get help from the government. It will all come out soon enough.

http://pix11.com/2016/08/19/georgia-man-accused-of-killing-teens-posing-bodies-behind-publix-store/

What makes you think there are "millions" who commit murder with a firearm and are NOT on doctor prescribed drugs with KNOWN SIDE EFFECTS? BTW, millions??? That would be what... TWENTY YEARS worth of shootings in the U.S.???

The answer to that part of your question is, exactly as I said before:

1) The mental health community needs to be held accountable for the effects of their treatments

2) Drug therapy is the FIRST order of medical protocol in America. It needs to be the LAST and drugs are not appropriate in every case

3) When people are on drugs known to have effects of homicidal and suicidal thoughts, said persons need to be in protective custody. Expecting people with mental / behavioral issues to remember their meds and report all their feelings is absolute insanity.

Last, unless America severely reduces immigration AND prohibits those whose ideology / religion / political persuasion is antithetical to our foundational principles, THIS NATION WILL DESTROY ITSELF.

It does not matter whether you believe in Christianity or not; America was founded on Christian principles and it is the dominant religion in America. With respect to those who have an Islamist background, the Bible says this:

"And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brothers." Genesis 16 :12

The Koran teaches that if the Muslims cannot convert us, they are to kill us. The leopard cannot change its spots. Siegfried & Roy thought they could take a lion out of his habitat and make him do what they wanted. It didn't pan out too good, did it? We aren't going to accept the Muslims into our society and expect any less of a result. Seigfried & Roy can point out how many times they did not get attacked, but the one attack made them throw in the towel and retire. What about you? Still going to give me excuses for Omar Mateen, Nidal Hasan, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

We don't ask the Nazis or the KKK to join hands and sit around the camp fire and sing Kum Bah Yah; we don't tolerate organizations that inspire Dylan Roof types, but we live in complete denial when people with dangerous ideologies from abroad attack and kill our citizenry. Not one in 10,000 racists would do what Dylan Roof did, but we don't tolerate the whole lot of them and for the actions of a single guy. Yet we're going to make excuses for the Muslims even when we know that the Nidal Hasans, Mateens, etc. are being inspired by millions of other Muslims. Here's your wake up call.

Anti gunners are hung up on gun control. It's not about saving lives; it's about control. I make you a promise this day: When the last shovel of dirt is spread over your grave, there will be Americans with guns. People will still be dying. And if you don't heed my words, many lives could have been saved had you taken the time to do something constructive to save those lives. Committing treason by railing against our unalienable Rights won't cut it.

 

I didn't fall asleep, I'm just trying to make clear what you think should be done. What actual steps or laws should be implemented. Because as of now, it's not illegal to take SSRIs, or be a Muslim, so how do you actually stop these things? And both of these groups regardless, are citizens, and so certainly they all have their rights as Americans, too. Freedom of choice and religion and guns.

There are millions of people on SSRIs. The vast majority do not kill anyone. But you are saying everyone of them is a potential mass murderer and needs to be in protective custody.

And with Muslims, the millions who live here as citizens, you are likening all of them to Nazis and the KKK, and so do what exactly with these various groups?

 

And there are millions of AR 15's, the vast majority of which are not involved in homicides. But wait. Isn't the same logic you apply to Muslims and SSRI's. More selective hypocrisy on your part.Typical.

 

Is it me being hypocritical and selective? I just said Muslims and those on SSRIs are citizens and therefore have the right to guns, AR15s and any other weapon, as much as you or anyone does.

And again, I'm not saying what should be done, I'm asking. So thanks once again for just making a crack and not actually answering the questions.

 

Your complete and utter ignorance of the subject not withstanding. What gives you the right to determine the needs of others? Who made you the decision maker for over 100 million gun owners? By what right do you get to push your standards for needs on others? You called an ar-15 a machine gun. Do you even know what a machine gun is and how they operate? Do you even know how many people are killed by what types of gun each year? I suggest you educate yourself on the use of firearms, how they operate, and how many people are actually murdered by each type of firearm each year before you come in here and start asking people what they need? Your moral ground you think you have is borne out of complete ignorance and as the old saying goes "the op emperor has no clothes"