Obama's Executive Orders Against Guns

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

I assume you have verifiable evidence, based on how sure you sound

fucking silly, of course it disarms the good guys.

Laws are only FOLLOWED by law abiding citizens, so you have a shit ton of gun owners doing the right thing and because a few mad men kill people the entire gun community is thrown under the bus.

" Don't judge the majority for the acts of the minority" Guess that line is only used when it benefits certain people and not gun owners.

I have gotten awfully tired of seeing this rebuttal everywhere.

How about, just for once, the majority actually get off their asses and do something about this "violent minority" that supposedly doesn't represent them? Why isn't this majority making its voice more known, except for when events happen where they spend the entire time distancing themselves from said minority, rather than at least attempting to come up with actual solutions to the problem? You would almost think that this majority stands in silent approval of what the supposed "minority" does, if this majority even exists at all.

Wait, why am I sounding exactly like how certain groups who just happen to also be pro-gun and part of your stated "majority" sound when a certain other group gets blamed for the actions of a stated minority...? Coincidence, surely...

[North Calaveras]

fucking silly, of course it disarms the good guys.

Laws are only FOLLOWED by law abiding citizens, so you have a shit ton of gun owners doing the right thing and because a few mad men kill people the entire gun community is thrown under the bus.

" Don't judge the majority for the acts of the minority" Guess that line is only used when it benefits certain people and not gun owners.

I have gotten awfully tired of seeing this rebuttal everywhere.

How about, just for once, the majority actually get off their asses and do something about this "violent minority" that supposedly doesn't represent them? Why isn't this majority making its voice more known, except for when events happen where they spend the entire time distancing themselves from said minority, rather than at least attempting to come up with actual solutions to the problem? You would almost thing that his majority stands in silent approval of what the supposed "minority" does, if this majority even exists at all.

Wait, why am I sounding exactly like how certain groups who just happen to also be pro-gun and part of your stated "majority" sound when a certain other group gets blamed for the actions of a stated minority...? Coincidence, surely...

because the majority is so much vaster than the minority and what the minority does IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYONE except criminals.

This isn't islam where you still have a shit ton of people going " well...I mean she should wear a burqa and maybe only get a couple lashes"

300 MILLION plus guns in the US alone, even if 1 million were used in crimes(which is a ludicrously high number that im inflating on purpose for effect) that would be less than 1 percent.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

I have gotten awfully tired of seeing this rebuttal everywhere.

How about, just for once, the majority actually get off their asses and do something about this "violent minority" that supposedly doesn't represent them? Why isn't this majority making its voice more known, except for when events happen where they spend the entire time distancing themselves from said minority, rather than at least attempting to come up with actual solutions to the problem? You would almost thing that his majority stands in silent approval of what the supposed "minority" does, if this majority even exists at all.

Wait, why am I sounding exactly like how certain groups who just happen to also be pro-gun and part of your stated "majority" sound when a certain other group gets blamed for the actions of a stated minority...? Coincidence, surely...

because the majority is so much vaster than the minority and what the minority does IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYONE except criminals.

This isn't islam where you still have a shit ton of people going " well...I mean she should wear a burqa and maybe only get a couple lashes"

300 MILLION plus guns in the US alone, even if 1 million were used in crimes(which is a ludicrously high number hat im inflating on purpose for effect) that would be less than 1 percent.

No, instead you have a shit ton of people going "well, of course those people shouldn't have guns, but don't you dare try and take away my guns or ban my ability to obtain all the parts needed to turn an AR-15 full-auto! Or prevent me from getting an utterly-useless-in-any-other-setting-but-murder weapon like the AR-15 in the first place! Or actually put more checks in place so that it's harder for criminals to get guns in the first place!"

As for what the minority is doing not being supported? You already do, through your inaction to prevent the minority from even being dangerous in the first place, and your repeated actions at making it harder to do so because it would slightly inconvenience you. And it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1,000,000 - A gun is still a dangerous weapon designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that's to kill something. And when it isn't hunting wild animals, it's hunting humans - And taking the lives of the innocent and defenseless with them. Why is your side so eager to allow for the latter to happen, when 9 times out of 10 the weapons used are utterly fucking useless for the former in the first place? Why does your side insist on blocking every attempt to make your country safer, when that is in the best interests of you as well as those you disagree with?

Why?

[North Calaveras]

because the majority is so much vaster than the minority and what the minority does IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANYONE except criminals.

This isn't islam where you still have a shit ton of people going " well...I mean she should wear a burqa and maybe only get a couple lashes"

300 MILLION plus guns in the US alone, even if 1 million were used in crimes(which is a ludicrously high number hat im inflating on purpose for effect) that would be less than 1 percent.

No, instead you have a shit ton of people going "well, of course those people shouldn't have guns, but don't you dare try and take away my guns or ban my ability to obtain all the parts needed to turn an AR-15 full-auto! Or prevent me from getting an utterly-useless-in-any-other-setting-but-murder weapon like the AR-15 in the first place! Or actually put more checks in place so that it's harder for criminals to get guns in the first place!"

As for what the minority is doing not being supported? You already do, through your inaction to prevent the minority from even being dangerous in the first place, and your repeated actions at making it harder to do so because it would slightly inconvenience you. And it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1,000,000 - A gun is still a dangerous weapon designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that's to kill something. And when it isn't hunting wild animals, it's hunting humans - And taking the lives of the innocent and defenseless with them. Why is your side so eager to allow for the latter to happen, when 9 times out of 10 the weapons used are utterly fucking useless for the former in the first place? Why does your side insist on blocking every attempt to make your country safer, when that is in the best interests of you as well as those you disagree with?

Why?

utterly-useless-in-any-other-setting-but-murder weapon like an AR-15? geeze what a claim.

alright first off your dead wrong considering AR-15's are popular hunting weapon to, especially for hogs which are a very real problem in the US. Not to mention the police use AR-15's and other weapons to defend themselves as well. If guns are ONLY used for hurting innocent people and defenseless(wait did you say hurting the defenseless? you mean....unarmed people? herp a derp) then you should call for the disarmament of the police, military, and anyone else armed.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

No, instead you have a shit ton of people going "well, of course those people shouldn't have guns, but don't you dare try and take away my guns or ban my ability to obtain all the parts needed to turn an AR-15 full-auto! Or prevent me from getting an utterly-useless-in-any-other-setting-but-murder weapon like the AR-15 in the first place! Or actually put more checks in place so that it's harder for criminals to get guns in the first place!"

As for what the minority is doing not being supported? You already do, through your inaction to prevent the minority from even being dangerous in the first place, and your repeated actions at making it harder to do so because it would slightly inconvenience you. And it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1,000,000 - A gun is still a dangerous weapon designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that's to kill something. And when it isn't hunting wild animals, it's hunting humans - And taking the lives of the innocent and defenseless with them. Why is your side so eager to allow for the latter to happen, when 9 times out of 10 the weapons used are utterly fucking useless for the former in the first place? Why does your side insist on blocking every attempt to make your country safer, when that is in the best interests of you as well as those you disagree with?

Why?

utterly-useless-in-any-other-setting-but-murder weapon like an AR-15? geeze what a claim.

alright first off your dead wrong considering AR-15's are popular hunting weapon to, especially for hogs which are a very real problem in the US. Not to mention the police use AR-15's and other weapons to defend themselves as well. If guns are ONLY used for hurting innocent people and defenseless(wait did you say hurting the defenseless? you mean....unarmed people? herp a derp) then you should call for the disarmament of the police, military, and anyone else armed.

Yes, I'm certain 5.56mm is better than, I dunno, 30-06 or .308 when it comes to hunting...

And unlike some yahoo in the back of a pickup truck, the police and military are actually fucking trained in the use of their firearms, up to and including keeping records of when and where their arms are used - And in the case of the military, excepting very particular circumstances no gun is allowed to leave the base or even the armoury in the first place. With police, it's limited to their pistols only. Now, it is true that the US has an epidemic of cowboy cops shooting first and asking questions later, but that is still safer than jo-blo with an assault rifle. After all, those cops are just the minority, right?

[North Calaveras]

utterly-useless-in-any-other-setting-but-murder weapon like an AR-15? geeze what a claim.

alright first off your dead wrong considering AR-15's are popular hunting weapon to, especially for hogs which are a very real problem in the US. Not to mention the police use AR-15's and other weapons to defend themselves as well. If guns are ONLY used for hurting innocent people and defenseless(wait did you say hurting the defenseless? you mean....unarmed people? herp a derp) then you should call for the disarmament of the police, military, and anyone else armed.

Yes, I'm certain 5.56mm is better than, I dunno, 30-06 or .308 when it comes to hunting...

And unlike some yahoo in the back of a pickup truck, the police and military are actually fucking trained in the use of their firearms, up to and including keeping records of when and where their arms are used - And in the case of the military, excepting very particular circumstances no gun is allowed to leave the base or even the armoury in the first place. With police, it's limited to their pistols only. Now, it is true that the US has an epidemic of cowboy cops shooting first and asking questions later, but that is still safer than jo-blo with an assault rifle. After all, those cops are just the minority, right?

Bad cops are the minority just like bad gun owners(lol usually not even the owners of the weapons but whatever) are the minority.

and you part about military bases is part bullcrap because I'm military and we are allowed to have firearms in our houses, your referring to assigned weapons from the arms room.

I have training to, does that mean once im done in the military I just "poof" lose my ability to handle a firearm and no longer am capable of being a responsible adult?

[Neu California]

fucking silly, of course it disarms the good guys.

Laws are only FOLLOWED by law abiding citizens, so you have a shit ton of gun owners doing the right thing and because a few mad men kill people the entire gun community is thrown under the bus.

" Don't judge the majority for the acts of the minority" Guess that line is only used when it benefits certain people and not gun owners.

Did you miss the word only? That's what I wanted the verifiable evidence for.

Also, most criminals will follow the law at least some of the time, so the statement that laws are only followed by law abiding citizens, as you said in your post, is utterly asinine.

I note a distinct lack of response to this post, even as you respond to Hardened's posts. Why is that?

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Yes, I'm certain 5.56mm is better than, I dunno, 30-06 or .308 when it comes to hunting...

And unlike some yahoo in the back of a pickup truck, the police and military are actually fucking trained in the use of their firearms, up to and including keeping records of when and where their arms are used - And in the case of the military, excepting very particular circumstances no gun is allowed to leave the base or even the armoury in the first place. With police, it's limited to their pistols only. Now, it is true that the US has an epidemic of cowboy cops shooting first and asking questions later, but that is still safer than jo-blo with an assault rifle. After all, those cops are just the minority, right?

Bad cops are the minority just like bad gun owners(lol usually not even the owners of the weapons but whatever) are the minority.

and you part about military bases is part bullcrap because I'm military and we are allowed to have firearms in our houses, your referring to assigned weapons from the arms room.

I have training to, does that mean once im done in the military I just "poof" lose my ability to handle a firearm and no longer am capable of being a responsible adult?

Do you take your M16 back home? Do the snipers get to carry their .50's back home? And I am seriously going to call horseshit on that as well, unless the US is REALLY that stupid about keeping track of their equipment. Now, like with police pistols I can at least understand. Here in Canada I know officers at least are permitted to carry their sidearms home - But only the officers, and any other weaponry are kept on base.

As for losing your gun privileges? You don't lose them entirely, so long as you stay licensed. What you do lose is the right to play with the big boy toys, because that is a privilege reserved for the trained few, not a right.

[North Calaveras]

Did you miss the word only? That's what I wanted the verifiable evidence for.

Also, most criminals will follow the law at least some of the time, so the statement that laws are only followed by law abiding citizens, as you said in your post, is utterly asinine.

I note a distinct lack of response to this post, even as you respond to Hardened's posts. Why is that?

okay cool

criminals follow the law WHEN IT SUITS THEM. The criminals would use the laws against law abiding citizens(you know, the ones who follow the law on a REGULAR basis) if it gave them an advantage. I know, speaking as military police, if I was a criminal I would want to make sure as many people are disarmed as possible because that means that the resistance I meet will be minimal at best. If i have reason to belief someone might be armed that makes me rethink everything and question my plans, it also deters my chance at success. This isn't rocket science.

[North Calaveras]

Bad cops are the minority just like bad gun owners(lol usually not even the owners of the weapons but whatever) are the minority.

and you part about military bases is part bullcrap because I'm military and we are allowed to have firearms in our houses, your referring to assigned weapons from the arms room.

I have training to, does that mean once im done in the military I just "poof" lose my ability to handle a firearm and no longer am capable of being a responsible adult?

Do you take your M16 back home? Do the snipers get to carry their .50's back home? And I am seriously going to call horseshit on that as well, unless the US is REALLY that stupid about keeping track of their equipment. Now, like with police pistols I can at least understand. Here in Canada I know officers at least are permitted to carry their sidearms home - But only the officers, and any other weaponry are kept on base.

As for losing your gun privileges? You don't lose them entirely, so long as you stay licensed. What you do lose is the right to play with the big boy toys, because that is a privilege reserved for the trained few, not a right.

Good thing in the United States guns are not a privledge, but a right. It's also disgusting that Canada would only trust officers with weapons in their homes.

I also mentioned assigned weapons, never stating that someone could bring their m16 back home. I can have an AR-15 and handgun in my house though, ON BASE.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Do you take your M16 back home? Do the snipers get to carry their .50's back home? And I am seriously going to call horseshit on that as well, unless the US is REALLY that stupid about keeping track of their equipment. Now, like with police pistols I can at least understand. Here in Canada I know officers at least are permitted to carry their sidearms home - But only the officers, and any other weaponry are kept on base.

As for losing your gun privileges? You don't lose them entirely, so long as you stay licensed. What you do lose is the right to play with the big boy toys, because that is a privilege reserved for the trained few, not a right.

Good thing in the United States guns are not a privledge, but a right. It's also disgusting that Canada would only trust officers with weapons in their homes.

I also mentioned assigned weapons, never stating that someone could bring their m16 back home. I can have an AR-15 and handgun in my house though, ON BASE.

... This is where the facepalm emote would be REALLY HANDY...

I specifically said that soldiers hang onto their guns when on-base, and only have to leave them behind when, y'know, not on base. Or is the United States considered one giant military base now?

Oh, and no, guns are not a right. Ever.

[North Calaveras]

Good thing in the United States guns are not a privledge, but a right. It's also disgusting that Canada would only trust officers with weapons in their homes.

I also mentioned assigned weapons, never stating that someone could bring their m16 back home. I can have an AR-15 and handgun in my house though, ON BASE.

... This is where the facepalm emote would be REALLY HANDY...

I specifically said that soldiers hang onto their guns when on-base, and only have to leave them behind when, y'know, not on base. Or is the United States considered one giant military base now?

Oh, and no, guns are not a right. Ever.

wierd, I read this thing called the constitution of the United States and it says that I have a right to bear arms and the supreme court ruled it as well...weird.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

... This is where the facepalm emote would be REALLY HANDY...

I specifically said that soldiers hang onto their guns when on-base, and only have to leave them behind when, y'know, not on base. Or is the United States considered one giant military base now?

Oh, and no, guns are not a right. Ever.

wierd, I read this thing called the constitution of the United States and it says that I have a right to bear arms and the supreme court ruled it as well...weird.

And this is where I stop talking to you, because you've deployed "The Last Defence".

"BUT MAH CAWNSTATUTIUN!" is the mark of a man who cannot defend his access to firearms in any sane manner and refuses to even try, and when that is presented it's the end of the debate. Have fun continuing to live in your fantasy world - Just try not to drag the rest of the world down with you.

[North Calaveras]

wierd, I read this thing called the constitution of the United States and it says that I have a right to bear arms and the supreme court ruled it as well...weird.

And this is where I stop talking to you, because you've deployed "The Last Defence".

"BUT MAH CAWNSTATUTIUN!" is the mark of a man who cannot defend his access to firearms in any sane manner and refuses to even try, and when that is presented it's the end of the debate. Have fun continuing to live in your fantasy world - Just try not to drag the rest of the world down with you.

Well, I do like your use of word play to make me out to be some ignorant southerner, quite tasteless when I read it actually, but whatever it's your freedom.

I apologize for using the constitution that ensures me certain freedoms for life as a defence, god forbid I use that...

You already showed your mark when you said an AR-15 was useless for anything but murder, but whatever

[Gauthier]

wierd, I read this thing called the constitution of the United States and it says that I have a right to bear arms and the supreme court ruled it as well...weird.

And this is where I stop talking to you, because you've deployed "The Last Defence".

"BUT MAH CAWNSTATUTIUN!" is the mark of a man who cannot defend his access to firearms in any sane manner and refuses to even try, and when that is presented it's the end of the debate. Have fun continuing to live in your fantasy world - Just try not to drag the rest of the world down with you.

Notice that some people who rag on about how the Qu'ran is outdated and barbaric also seem to think the Second Amendment is just fine the way it is at the same time?

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

And this is where I stop talking to you, because you've deployed "The Last Defence".

"BUT MAH CAWNSTATUTIUN!" is the mark of a man who cannot defend his access to firearms in any sane manner and refuses to even try, and when that is presented it's the end of the debate. Have fun continuing to live in your fantasy world - Just try not to drag the rest of the world down with you.

Notice that some people who rag on about how the Qu'ran is outdated and barbaric also seem to think the Second Amendment is just fine the way it is at the same time?

But this is totally different from Islam, guys!

[Big Jim P]

... This is where the facepalm emote would be REALLY HANDY...

I specifically said that soldiers hang onto their guns when on-base, and only have to leave them behind when, y'know, not on base. Or is the United States considered one giant military base now?

Oh, and no, guns are not a right. Ever.

wierd, I read this thing called the constitution of the United States and it says that I have a right to bear arms and the supreme court ruled it as well...weird.

I am no longer in the military, but I have an AR15 in my closet and a Glock 21 in my nightstand. Why? It is my right to own them and that is the ONLY reason that really matters.

[North Calaveras]

wierd, I read this thing called the constitution of the United States and it says that I have a right to bear arms and the supreme court ruled it as well...weird.

I am no longer in the military, but I have an AR15 in my closet and a Glock 21 in my nightstand. Why? It is my right to own them and that is the ONLY reason that really matters.

apparently is a useless weapon only desinged to murder innocent and defenseless(those without guns, shocker) people

[Big Jim P]

And this is where I stop talking to you, because you've deployed "The Last Defence".

"BUT MAH CAWNSTATUTIUN!" is the mark of a man who cannot defend his access to firearms in any sane manner and refuses to even try, and when that is presented it's the end of the debate. Have fun continuing to live in your fantasy world - Just try not to drag the rest of the world down with you.

Notice that some people who rag on about how the Qu'ran is outdated and barbaric also seem to think the Second Amendment is just fine the way it is at the same time?

Then amend the Constitution to repeal it. The mechanism is in place to do so.

[Big Jim P]

I am no longer in the military, but I have an AR15 in my closet and a Glock 21 in my nightstand. Why? It is my right to own them and that is the ONLY reason that really matters.

apparently is a useless weapon only designed to murder innocent and defenseless(those without guns, shocker) people

Mine must be defective then.

[Gauthier]

Notice that some people who rag on about how the Qu'ran is outdated and barbaric also seem to think the Second Amendment is just fine the way it is at the same time?

Then amend the Constitution to repeal it. The mechanism is in place to do so.

Cute and disingenuous, trying to pass the buck onto a complicated process that need near hivemind consensus to pass successfully.

[North Calaveras]

Then amend the Constitution to repeal it. The mechanism is in place to do so.

Cute and disingenuous, trying to pass the buck onto a complicated process that need near hivemind consensus to pass successfully.

well since your always being cute by going " Yeah all muslims and liberals are a hivemind"

you shouldn't have much difficulty

[Neu California]

I note a distinct lack of response to this post, even as you respond to Hardened's posts. Why is that?

okay cool

criminals follow the law WHEN IT SUITS THEM. The criminals would use the laws against law abiding citizens(you know, the ones who follow the law on a REGULAR basis) if it gave them an advantage. I know, speaking as military police, if I was a criminal I would want to make sure as many people are disarmed as possible because that means that the resistance I meet will be minimal at best. If i have reason to belief someone might be armed that makes me rethink everything and question my plans, it also deters my chance at success. This isn't rocket science.

So, by your own wording here, specifically this:

criminals follow the law WHEN IT SUITS THEM. The criminals would use the laws against law abiding citizens(you know, the ones who follow the law on a REGULAR basis) if it gave them an advantage.

A person who commits one crime, say a crime of passion (e.g. a man killing his wife after finding her in bed with another man), only follows the law thereafter when it suits him? He is a criminal after all, having committed a crime. Or a man spends some time committing crimes, is never caught, but eventually goes clean, not committing anymore crimes, but is still a criminal until the statute of limitations runs out, is only following the law because it suits him, and not because he wants to leave his criminal life behind?

Either your worldview is seriously bizarre or your wording needs work, take your pick

[Big Jim P]

Then amend the Constitution to repeal it. The mechanism is in place to do so.

Cute and disingenuous, trying to pass the buck onto a complicated process that need near hivemind consensus to pass successfully.

As is intended. When enough people think that the second is sufficiently outdated, then it will be repealed. The fact that there is not enough support (at any level from the Federal down to the individual) to accomplish this tell me that the gun-grabbers are on the losing end of this issue.

Gods bless democracy.

[North Calaveras]

okay cool

criminals follow the law WHEN IT SUITS THEM. The criminals would use the laws against law abiding citizens(you know, the ones who follow the law on a REGULAR basis) if it gave them an advantage. I know, speaking as military police, if I was a criminal I would want to make sure as many people are disarmed as possible because that means that the resistance I meet will be minimal at best. If i have reason to belief someone might be armed that makes me rethink everything and question my plans, it also deters my chance at success. This isn't rocket science.

So, by your own wording here, specifically this:

criminals follow the law WHEN IT SUITS THEM. The criminals would use the laws against law abiding citizens(you know, the ones who follow the law on a REGULAR basis) if it gave them an advantage.

A person who commits one crime, say a crime of passion (e.g. a man killing his wife after finding her in bed with another man), only follows the law thereafter when it suits him? He is a criminal after all, having committed a crime. Or a man spends some time committing crimes, is never caught, but eventually goes clean, not committing anymore crimes, but is still a criminal until the statute of limitations runs out, is only following the law because it suits him, and not because he wants to leave his criminal life behind?

Either your worldview is seriously bizarre or your wording needs work, take your pick

well its good your bring these points up because there are a lot of variables. For instance, I'm sure you have broken many laws without even knowing what you were doing. Ever watch a pirated movie? that's illegal technically. When I say criminal I would say that person regularly breaks the law for personal gain.

Back to guns, why should I not have the same weapons as say the police? Afterall I deal with the same criminals as civilians.