Are stricter gun laws, BANS coming to the land of the free?

[wango]

Nice! But, I’ll call you and raise. I have 2 pair.

[Honkey_Kong]

Nice! But, I’ll call you and raise. I have 2 pair.

You are under arrest!

[wango]

You are under arrest!

Dude, the girl in the middle has a nasty little smirk, ugh.

[Honkey_Kong]

Dude, the girl in the middle has a nasty little smirk, ugh.

Nikki Nova?

[wango]

Nikki Nova?

Had to google that name, lol. No idea - but she is smoking hot.

[almostgone]

Nikki Nova?

She's worthy, as is Courtney Cummz.

[almostgone]

Re: Firearm law changes coming.... I believe so. So....another 40mm can of Pmags stashed.

[Beetlegeuse]

Re: Firearm law changes coming.... I believe so. So....another 40mm can of Pmags stashed.

Once upon a time, there was a company named Bury All Thy Firearms (BATF). They sold kits that included large diameter PVC tubes (long enough to hold a rifle or shotgun) with end caps and glue, vapor barrier bags, cosmoline and desiccant.

I guess they were just ahead of their time.

[Mooseman33]

Sil needs that company

[Beetlegeuse]

The mother of the FedEx mass murderer alerted authorities that her son might be intending to commit "suicide by cop," so they interviewed him. But they cut him loose and didn't even bother to have him surveilled because they couldn't find any connection to "Racially Motivated Violent Extremism."

So now eight people are dead because the FBI was too fixated on their white supremacist witch hunt to be bothered to be wary of someone identified by his own mother as a potential homicidal maniac.



But, obviously, the guns (and those goddam HIGH_CAPACITY_MAGAZINES) are to blame.

[flyinlow]

I'm in the Chicago area myself where there is a lot of homicide. By taking guns away from law abiding citizens you are greatly increasing crime especially burglary. Basically banning guns you are making it illegal for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves. If someone suggests that banning legal guns will reduce criminals access to guns, that is painfully ignorant- i.e. (DRUGS)

Politicians however will argue banning guns will reduce suicide & mass shootings. I'm really discouraged if anyone believes that. Do citizens need to own an automatic? Answer is NO. Do I need to own a 50 caliber with a silencer? My answer is no. But disarming me from a gun is a mass shooters wet dream and vice versa if I have a concealed gun I will be that mass shooters worst nightmare. I love seeing gun shops in Chicago area where inner city youth and older females are learning to shoot a gun. This increase of law abiding gun owners will only reinforce peace in their community.

[Test Monsterone]

When’s the last time a mass shooter was stopped by someone with a concealed carry? It’s a nice thought, but never happens in reality. You’d be pissing your pants if a guy with an AR was dumping. All those Rambo fantasies are just that - fantasies.

I think people should be able to have guns at home for protection. I don’t think you need an AR for that. The truth is that banning guns does lead to less shootings, and if you don’t agree, well, you’re wrong. The data is out there and we have hundreds of countries with evidence of this.

We just need to accept that if we want to have assault rifles in circulation, there will inevitably be mass shootings. End of story. That’s something we have to live with. Just like we have to live with the fact that if there are cars on the street, there will be fatal accidents.

I get so tired of the gun talk on this forum. The same old tired arguments. A gun is meant to shoot shit and cause harm or damage. That’s it... stop making it out like it’s some sacred tool. If it’s out there, it will kill. If less of them are out there, there will be less kills... common sense, logic.

[flyinlow]

I will reply to this argument only once and we can both accept to agree to disagree.

"When’s the last time a mass shooter was stopped by someone with a concealed carry? It’s a nice thought, but never happens in reality. You’d be pissing your pants if a guy with an AR was dumping. All those Rambo fantasies are just that - fantasies."

Completely inaccurate. There's several events in the past where shooters tried to shoot up a Church and both were cancelled by 2A citizen. One of them was actually running down the street to the church while loading a magazine. There was a small exchange of a firefight but it was enough for the would be mass shooter to get in his car and flee. Also last year a deacon in a church neutralized a would be shotgun mass shooter with a nice 30 foot headshot. That's on video. I would encourage you to watch it. Me personally I wouldn't "piss my pants" If I could get a nice aim I would do a head shot otherwise just a couple rounds in the chest if I need to be super quick. Your "Rambo" insinuation is very rich. My AR rifle has melted paint. I can shoot 30 rounds in little over 3 seconds with a nice group at 100 yards. A 6.5 CM I am accurate only at 200 yards. I need to get out west or in the south to learn the gun better. That rifle is accurate at up to 1,760 yards unfortunately I don't have access to an area to learn the scope that well. In regards to your Rambo comment, sure you can call me rambo. But I won't take credit for that comment. I would only suggest that you should break glass with a veteran or gun guru. Those folks are my version of a "rambo" and all your Mass shooters are not a Rambo.

If you want to use the Vegas shooter as an example? I will happily source you the wikileaks drop informing that was an FBI false flag.

Since the Biden's occupancy in "WH" or the castle rock studios. There's been a lot more "false flags". Same way Hitler wanted our guns is the same motives for the push to disarm 300 M Americans with false flags.

Sorry for disagreeing, I hope you have a blessed day and nice to meet you btw.

[Test Monsterone]

A couple of good guy saves doesn’t make up for the hundreds that have been killed. There are countries in which there are no guns and no shootings, period. Giving people access to more guns never leads to less gun deaths, that’s purely illogical.

Don’t know what you mean about the Vegas shooter, but it’s pretty clear to me that guy was deranged and probably had a micro penis (given his Asian lady partner, probably is true), and hated the world. I don’t see any FBI conspiracy there. He wanted to cause mass harm, and lax gun laws and his ability to stockpile weapons gave him the possibility. There doesn’t need to be any conspiracy, and it’s totally possible that out of 350 million people, someone would go nuts and want to shoot up a bunch of people.

You can’t bring Biden or anyone in the Democratic Party and associate them with Hitler. The people who believe in peace, inclusion, and equal rights have NOTHING in common with a genocidal dictator. Trump is much more in line with that thinking, and conservatives have all the small-minded racists to back them up. Trump is the one who made friends with all of our dictator enemies and enemies with all of our friends and allies. It would take nothing for someone like Trump to turn conservatives into the same German people who thought it was perfectly fine to murder entire races of people based on their religious beliefs... why? Because they are the ones who are close minded and intolerant. So it is quite RICH for you to call democrats, essentially Nazis, when it’s your type of people who are hateful and intolerant. People who are tolerant and accepting don’t feel they need to stockpile guns and ammo. They also don’t become brainwashed and worship whoever speaks whatever their closed minds are afraid to say out loud. Nice to meet you, too.

[Testie]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...-control-psaki

After two mass shootings recently, according to sources President Joe Biden has hinted on banning high capacity mags and “assault weapons” once again.

Would stripping the rights of millions of law abiding citizens be of benefit? Would it stop mass shootings? Hmm something to think about. Of course if we did this, it would have to benefit everyone not just mass shootings. One could argue the black on black crime rates would also fall

Unfortunately true I will probably die before I give mine up but I know where I’m going when I die so I’m not afraid...this regime will try to take a bit at a time until we are loading black powder I’m sure our Aussie Brothers can attest to how this little socialist scam played out for them

[Beetlegeuse]

There's a reason why mass murderers tend to concentrate their efforts on gun-free zones.



When you don't, it can fuck up your plans.

[Beetlegeuse]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

There Is An Easy Way To Understand People Who Wish You To Be Unarmed.

Posted on April 30, 2021 by Dean Weingarten

It takes a little discipline. You may have a little mental discomfort, but it is not particularly difficult. For the ability to understand the other side, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.

Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.

Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement “guns are bad”.

Guns are Bad

Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed.

It is why many who are voluntarily unarmed dislike concealed carry but violently abhor open carry. Open carry presents them with a reality they cannot easily ignore. It destroys their comfortable fantasy.

People more easily accept information that reinforces what they already believe. It is a form of selection bias. If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept the news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to happily accept that as true.

If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.

Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person. You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.

One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant.

Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions. Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.

This explains attempts to minimize crime, minimize the dangers of wild animals, minimize government ineffectiveness in emergencies. It explains why so much effort is expended to discredit the number of times firearms are used for self-defense and to prevent crime. It explains the insistence that government can never become tyrannical.

It is difficult for an unarmed person to disarm an armed one. Because you fear those who are armed, you need a champion to disarm them. Your champion is the government. To believe the government is your champion, you assume the government is benevolent; the government is concerned with your safety; the government will be there to protect you in need. This mindset is easier to maintain if you believe the need for a protector is minimal. Many voluntarily unarmed people put significant effort in an attempt to minimize the need for armed protection.

The purpose of learning to think like someone who made the decision to be unarmed is to understand how to persuade those who have adopted the mindset, or who may be deciding to be unarmed or not. It is easier to persuade them if you understand the mindset.

Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed.

Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.

Making the Case

There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.

An important part of persuasion is to present yourself as polite and reasonable. On the Internet, you are speaking to the world. Being polite and reasonable does not mean you have to agree. It is not hard to show people their misconceptions in kind ways. It helps persuade those who are reading but not participating.

One strong way to change the cost-benefit ratio for deliberately unarmed people is to show armed citizens make them safer. Show how armed or legally armed-people make them more safe rather than less safe. Show how armed people work to prevent crime, rather than to cause it.

Examples of people who used firearms to prevent crime can be used to good effect. Show them how people who are legally armed are more law-abiding than police. Show legally armed people have stopped mass murder. Show were armed people have saved police lives.

The voluntarily unarmed do not need to become armed to see advantages in having legally armed people about. Legally armed people become another force to preserve order, in addition to the police.

Another method is to lower the personal fear of firearms. This is very effective. Invite them to go shooting. Make this a pleasant experience. Have them shoot a .22, using hearing protection or a suppressor. Have the target up close, so it is hard for them to miss. A great many people change their opinion about firearms after a trip to the range.

It is one of the reasons those who wish to disarm us work hard to make it difficult to shoot legally. There are no public ranges in Chicago open to ordinary people.

You can reduce the perception of the cost of an armed population by showing them facts about firearm accidents. Tremendous strides have occurred to reduce fatal firearms accidents. The rate of fatal gun accidents has been reduced by 94%in the last 90 years. Show them fatal gun accidents involving young children are extremely rare, less frequent than fatal accidents involving bicycles or glass tabletops.

Explaining the uncertainty of the future can help them become aware of potential future needs for firearms. They may want to be armed in the future. Use historical examples. You do not have to go far. Consider rooftop Koreans, or shop owners in Ferguson, Missouri.

This shows them the benefit of keeping their options open. Explain how changes in society or their personal situation may make the ownership of a firearm more important or useful. People often become more aware of the need for defense when they become parents or homeowners.

The surge in new gun owners shows how effective this motivation can be.

The desire to be armed is rooted in human nature, #ad in the desire to protect ourselves, those we love, our possessions, and our society.

Many who are voluntarily unarmed took the road of least resistance. If they can be gently persuaded to consider and reflect on their choice, they can change their mind.

The other side of the cost-benefit ratio is worthwhile. People who have chosen to be unarmed should be educated that disarming others is not cost-free. Increased distrust in society, increased black markets in arms, increased risk of armed resistance, and low-level warfare can increase their personal risk.

Society becomes fragmented and divided. Everyone becomes far less secure. Attempting to disarm society carries serious risks for those pushing the disarmament as well as those society attempts to disarm. Draconian gun restrictions have not reduced murder rates or the number of illegal guns.

In a society with 470 million privately owned guns, and gun sales at record levels, It will either take societal upheaval or many generations to disarm the American population if it is possible at all. Those who are unarmed will be vulnerable.

Very few choose to obey a law to register guns. For fear of sparking serious unrest, the 90-98% who do not comply are not subject to house-to-house searches. The media attempt to convince people that guns are useless when social cohesion breaks down. Have you seen movies where guns, lying about, are ignored while the hero picks up a club, or runs away? They are common on the net, but not very popular.

You can tell them how strict gun control is seen by a large percentage of the population as violating basic human rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Most people can understand how bad it is for a country to lose trust in the rule of law. Look at Chicago, Venezuela, the U.S. Virgin Islands. In all those areas, the rule of law has broken down. This is a powerful argument, which is why those desiring an unarmed population spend so much time misrepresenting and attacking the Second Amendment.

Explain the physical limits of gun control. Show how people with minimal technology make guns with ease; explain that gunpowder, priming, and bullets were all made in households and small shops by 1880. People today still use those techniques. They are supplemented by easily obtained and inexpensive machine tools, chemical equipment, and even 3D printing. The information is available to anyone with a computer.

The gun culture and Second Amendment supporters have physics, chemistry, facts, human nature, and the Constitution on their side.

Those who wish a disarmed population can win if they suppress and control the flow of information. Those who oppose Second Amendment rights necessarily oppose free exercise of the First Amendment.

Compared to nearly the entire rest of the world, people in the United States have retained the ability to choose to be legally armed or unarmed. Most people in the USA want to keep the option. Nearly all the rest of the world does not have it.

#30#

source: www.ammoland.com/2021/04/learn-to-think-like-the-sheep-who-chose-to-be-unarmed/

[flyinlow]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

There Is An Easy Way To Understand People Who Wish You To Be Unarmed.

Posted on April 30, 2021 by Dean Weingarten

It takes a little discipline. You may have a little mental discomfort, but it is not particularly difficult. For the ability to understand the other side, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.

Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.

Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement “guns are bad”.

Guns are Bad

Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed.

It is why many who are voluntarily unarmed dislike concealed carry but violently abhor open carry. Open carry presents them with a reality they cannot easily ignore. It destroys their comfortable fantasy.

People more easily accept information that reinforces what they already believe. It is a form of selection bias. If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept the news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to happily accept that as true.

If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.

Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person. You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.

One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant.

Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions. Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.

This explains attempts to minimize crime, minimize the dangers of wild animals, minimize government ineffectiveness in emergencies. It explains why so much effort is expended to discredit the number of times firearms are used for self-defense and to prevent crime. It explains the insistence that government can never become tyrannical.

It is difficult for an unarmed person to disarm an armed one. Because you fear those who are armed, you need a champion to disarm them. Your champion is the government. To believe the government is your champion, you assume the government is benevolent; the government is concerned with your safety; the government will be there to protect you in need. This mindset is easier to maintain if you believe the need for a protector is minimal. Many voluntarily unarmed people put significant effort in an attempt to minimize the need for armed protection.

The purpose of learning to think like someone who made the decision to be unarmed is to understand how to persuade those who have adopted the mindset, or who may be deciding to be unarmed or not. It is easier to persuade them if you understand the mindset.

Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed.

Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.

Making the Case

There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.

An important part of persuasion is to present yourself as polite and reasonable. On the Internet, you are speaking to the world. Being polite and reasonable does not mean you have to agree. It is not hard to show people their misconceptions in kind ways. It helps persuade those who are reading but not participating.

One strong way to change the cost-benefit ratio for deliberately unarmed people is to show armed citizens make them safer. Show how armed or legally armed-people make them more safe rather than less safe. Show how armed people work to prevent crime, rather than to cause it.

Examples of people who used firearms to prevent crime can be used to good effect. Show them how people who are legally armed are more law-abiding than police. Show legally armed people have stopped mass murder. Show were armed people have saved police lives.

The voluntarily unarmed do not need to become armed to see advantages in having legally armed people about. Legally armed people become another force to preserve order, in addition to the police.

Another method is to lower the personal fear of firearms. This is very effective. Invite them to go shooting. Make this a pleasant experience. Have them shoot a .22, using hearing protection or a suppressor. Have the target up close, so it is hard for them to miss. A great many people change their opinion about firearms after a trip to the range.

It is one of the reasons those who wish to disarm us work hard to make it difficult to shoot legally. There are no public ranges in Chicago open to ordinary people.

You can reduce the perception of the cost of an armed population by showing them facts about firearm accidents. Tremendous strides have occurred to reduce fatal firearms accidents. The rate of fatal gun accidents has been reduced by 94%in the last 90 years. Show them fatal gun accidents involving young children are extremely rare, less frequent than fatal accidents involving bicycles or glass tabletops.

Explaining the uncertainty of the future can help them become aware of potential future needs for firearms. They may want to be armed in the future. Use historical examples. You do not have to go far. Consider rooftop Koreans, or shop owners in Ferguson, Missouri.

This shows them the benefit of keeping their options open. Explain how changes in society or their personal situation may make the ownership of a firearm more important or useful. People often become more aware of the need for defense when they become parents or homeowners.

The surge in new gun owners shows how effective this motivation can be.

The desire to be armed is rooted in human nature, #ad in the desire to protect ourselves, those we love, our possessions, and our society.

Many who are voluntarily unarmed took the road of least resistance. If they can be gently persuaded to consider and reflect on their choice, they can change their mind.

The other side of the cost-benefit ratio is worthwhile. People who have chosen to be unarmed should be educated that disarming others is not cost-free. Increased distrust in society, increased black markets in arms, increased risk of armed resistance, and low-level warfare can increase their personal risk.

Society becomes fragmented and divided. Everyone becomes far less secure. Attempting to disarm society carries serious risks for those pushing the disarmament as well as those society attempts to disarm. Draconian gun restrictions have not reduced murder rates or the number of illegal guns.

In a society with 470 million privately owned guns, and gun sales at record levels, It will either take societal upheaval or many generations to disarm the American population if it is possible at all. Those who are unarmed will be vulnerable.

Very few choose to obey a law to register guns. For fear of sparking serious unrest, the 90-98% who do not comply are not subject to house-to-house searches. The media attempt to convince people that guns are useless when social cohesion breaks down. Have you seen movies where guns, lying about, are ignored while the hero picks up a club, or runs away? They are common on the net, but not very popular.

You can tell them how strict gun control is seen by a large percentage of the population as violating basic human rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Most people can understand how bad it is for a country to lose trust in the rule of law. Look at Chicago, Venezuela, the U.S. Virgin Islands. In all those areas, the rule of law has broken down. This is a powerful argument, which is why those desiring an unarmed population spend so much time misrepresenting and attacking the Second Amendment.

Explain the physical limits of gun control. Show how people with minimal technology make guns with ease; explain that gunpowder, priming, and bullets were all made in households and small shops by 1880. People today still use those techniques. They are supplemented by easily obtained and inexpensive machine tools, chemical equipment, and even 3D printing. The information is available to anyone with a computer.

The gun culture and Second Amendment supporters have physics, chemistry, facts, human nature, and the Constitution on their side.

Those who wish a disarmed population can win if they suppress and control the flow of information. Those who oppose Second Amendment rights necessarily oppose free exercise of the First Amendment.

Compared to nearly the entire rest of the world, people in the United States have retained the ability to choose to be legally armed or unarmed. Most people in the USA want to keep the option. Nearly all the rest of the world does not have it.

#30#

source: www.ammoland.com/2021/04/learn-to-think-like-the-sheep-who-chose-to-be-unarmed/

Informative post. I was from a country state when I moved downtown Chicago. My biggest two adjustments were gas stations and guns. Gas stations in Chicago are gross. Legal gun owners in Chicago and very very few. When going to a gun shop you had to deal with absolutely vile disgusting humans who literally thought they were a Chuck Norris. So inflated and they made me want to vomit. I was so repulsed by there arrogance it wanted to make me puke. That was 10 years ago and today I have two gun stores narrowed down where I can shoot with no perpetuated arrogance. Just genuine gun owners who believe in firearms. The crusade against guns is real. Those against it seem to have a ridiculous insinuation / correlation of guns = drugs & homicide. Go to Missouri, Oklahoma, TN, TX or other states where gun culture is predominate. Guns are more or less for hunting, target or worst case scenario self defense which is very rare.

[wango]

Informative post. I was from a country state when I moved downtown Chicago. My biggest two adjustments were gas stations and guns. Gas stations in Chicago are gross. Legal gun owners in Chicago and very very few. When going to a gun shop you had to deal with absolutely vile disgusting humans who literally thought they were a Chuck Norris. So inflated and they made me want to vomit. I was so repulsed by there arrogance it wanted to make me puke. That was 10 years ago and today I have two gun stores narrowed down where I can shoot with no perpetuated arrogance. Just genuine gun owners who believe in firearms. The crusade against guns is real. Those against it seem to have a ridiculous insinuation / correlation of guns = drugs & homicide. Go to Missouri, Oklahoma, TN, TX or other states where gun culture is predominate. Guns are more or less for hunting, target or worst case scenario self defense which is very rare.

Just curious, what the hell are you doing in the gas station that makes it “gross”, lol?

[Cuz]

Unfortunately true I will probably die before I give mine up but I know where I’m going when I die so I’m not afraid...this regime will try to take a bit at a time until we are loading black powder I’m sure our Aussie Brothers can attest to how this little socialist scam played out for them

You a good dude man. Glad we got folks like you around!

[Honkey_Kong]

Just curious, what the hell are you doing in the gas station that makes it “gross”, lol?

Dropping a deuce at some gas stations is pretty gross.

[wango]

Dropping a deuce at some gas stations is pretty gross.

Never really thought of rating a gas-stations bathroom’s cleanliness or appearance. Just took it for granted that if I’m taking a dump, the environment will be far less than pleasant. I don’t expect much at bars or music venues as well. I’ve encountered some disasters at theme parks, sporting venues and airports as well. Don’t get me started on subway or bus stations, regardless of the city.

[flyinlow]

Ha! Gross bathrooms, bullet proof glass between the cashier, they are nasty. But WI, IA gas stations you can eat off the floor, tasty pastries etc lol

[Hughinn]

When’s the last time a mass shooter was stopped by someone with a concealed carry? It’s a nice thought, but never happens in reality. You’d be pissing your pants if a guy with an AR was dumping. All those Rambo fantasies are just that - fantasies.

I think people should be able to have guns at home for protection. I don’t think you need an AR for that. The truth is that banning guns does lead to less shootings, and if you don’t agree, well, you’re wrong. The data is out there and we have hundreds of countries with evidence of this.

We just need to accept that if we want to have assault rifles in circulation, there will inevitably be mass shootings. End of story. That’s something we have to live with. Just like we have to live with the fact that if there are cars on the street, there will be fatal accidents.

I get so tired of the gun talk on this forum. The same old tired arguments. A gun is meant to shoot shit and cause harm or damage. That’s it... stop making it out like it’s some sacred tool. If it’s out there, it will kill. If less of them are out there, there will be less kills... common sense, logic.

No offense test.
But your leftist cookie cutter argument is just plain wrong.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/...the-u-s-stands


In the United States, mass shootings receive the most attention by the media and therefore, many attribute the high gun deaths to mass shootings. However, mass shootings are only responsible for a small number of overall gun violence deaths in the United States. More than two-thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Brazil has the highest number of gun deaths in the world, with a total of 43,200 out of the 250,000 worldwide – a gun death rate of 21.9 per 100,000 Brazilian citizens. The United States has the second-highest number of gun deaths with 37,200 but is number 27 with a death rate of 12.41 per 100,000 Americans

When counting gun deaths per 1000 people. And rated by county. The united states is like number 30. And most nations ahead of it have far stricter gun laws, even outright bans.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ths-by-country

I get that you believe your leftist doctrine deeply. I respect it even though I disagree. But the data is clear in this case . Gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, nor do they make anybody safer from gun violence. As the data proves, nations with gun bans/laws do not make citizens safer from gun violence nor affectively eliminate deaths by gun violence.

There are simply too many other factors aside from guns themselves that factor into the equation to say that banning guns is an effective, legitimate solution to gun violence. The data clearly shows this.

[Hughinn]

Just curious, what the hell are you doing in the gas station that makes it “gross”, lol?

Probably standing in a puddle of piss to take a leak. I don't know how people can't aim and hit a urinal

[Hughinn]

Ha! Gross bathrooms, bullet proof glass between the cashier, they are nasty. But WI, IA gas stations you can eat off the floor, tasty pastries etc lol

Ever seen has station bathrooms in louisiana?

They'd make illinois look like palaces.

[Test Monsterone]

No offense test.
But your leftist cookie cutter argument is just plain wrong.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/...the-u-s-stands


In the United States, mass shootings receive the most attention by the media and therefore, many attribute the high gun deaths to mass shootings. However, mass shootings are only responsible for a small number of overall gun violence deaths in the United States. More than two-thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Brazil has the highest number of gun deaths in the world, with a total of 43,200 out of the 250,000 worldwide – a gun death rate of 21.9 per 100,000 Brazilian citizens. The United States has the second-highest number of gun deaths with 37,200 but is number 27 with a death rate of 12.41 per 100,000 Americans

When counting gun deaths per 1000 people. And rated by county. The united states is like number 30. And most nations ahead of it have far stricter gun laws, even outright bans.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ths-by-country

I get that you believe your leftist doctrine deeply. I respect it even though I disagree. But the data is clear in this case . Gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, nor do they make anybody safer from gun violence. As the data proves, nations with gun bans/laws do not make citizens safer from gun violence nor affectively eliminate deaths by gun violence.

There are simply too many other factors aside from guns themselves that factor into the equation to say that banning guns is an effective, legitimate solution to gun violence. The data clearly shows this.

Logically, how can owning more guns lead to less gun deaths? I never said anything about the percent of suicides vs homicides. I simply said that in countries where there are no guns, there are hardly any homicides by gun. I don’t need any statistics for that, it’s just common sense.

I said I believe people should be able to own guns for protection. I said that ARs are responsible for many of our mass shootings (compared to a shotgun or hand gun). Banning ARs will lead to less successful mass shootings, but will not eliminate them. And finally, I said that gun ownership in America is a reality and deaths by guns is also a reality we must face as a result. I didn’t say we should ban anything.

You do this a lot - creating arguments about things nobody said. I’m not a leftist, I’m a free thinker and make my own mind up. You wouldn’t win any arguments in a debate because you can’t stick to the point and don’t actually listen or read what the person is saying.

[Hughinn]

Logically, how can owning more guns lead to less gun deaths? I never said anything about the percent of suicides vs homicides. I simply said that in countries where there are no guns, there are hardly any homicides by gun. I don’t need any statistics for that, it’s just common sense.

I said I believe people should be able to own guns for protection. I said that ARs are responsible for many of our mass shootings (compared to a shotgun or hand gun). Banning ARs will lead to less successful mass shootings, but will not eliminate them. And finally, I said that gun ownership in America is a reality and deaths by guns is also a reality we must face as a result. I didn’t say we should ban anything.

You do this a lot - creating arguments about things nobody said. I’m not a leftist, I’m a free thinker and make my own mind up. You wouldn’t win any arguments in a debate because you can’t stick to the point and don’t actually listen or read what the person is saying.

I understand where your coming from. I did hear what you said. No guns means nobody gets killed by guns. In a perfect vacuum maybe thats possible. But in reality, guns exist and cannot be totally eliminated among any population on earth by any law or statute.

The data I provided to shows the fallacy in your statement that gun laws and banning certain weapons can meaningfully reduce gun violence. The evidence is clear.

If your only point is that if in some hypothetical world where there were no guns, then nobody would ever get killed by gun violence, the I'd have to agree that in such a hypothetical scenario your point is right.

But no place such as that exists. And likely never will. Therefore, like the evidence shows, banning guns or certain gun types does not meaningfully accomplish anything to reduce deaths from gun violence

And thats not creating an argument, it's examining what you said. And showing with statistical evidence that you're mistaken. It's admirable to want to prevent gun violence. But as the data shows, bans and laws is clearly not the answer

I also apologize if I offended you with the remark of being a leftist. It's wrong to make such assumptions. I shouldn't have

[The Deadlifting Dog]

No offense test.
But your leftist cookie cutter argument is just plain wrong.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/...the-u-s-stands


In the United States, mass shootings receive the most attention by the media and therefore, many attribute the high gun deaths to mass shootings. However, mass shootings are only responsible for a small number of overall gun violence deaths in the United States. More than two-thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Brazil has the highest number of gun deaths in the world, with a total of 43,200 out of the 250,000 worldwide – a gun death rate of 21.9 per 100,000 Brazilian citizens. The United States has the second-highest number of gun deaths with 37,200 but is number 27 with a death rate of 12.41 per 100,000 Americans

When counting gun deaths per 1000 people. And rated by county. The united states is like number 30. And most nations ahead of it have far stricter gun laws, even outright bans.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ths-by-country

I get that you believe your leftist doctrine deeply. I respect it even though I disagree. But the data is clear in this case . Gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, nor do they make anybody safer from gun violence. As the data proves, nations with gun bans/laws do not make citizens safer from gun violence nor affectively eliminate deaths by gun violence.

There are simply too many other factors aside from guns themselves that factor into the equation to say that banning guns is an effective, legitimate solution to gun violence. The data clearly shows this.

You read your own article completely backwards. Or you outright lied. Which is it?

The US is the 7th WORST nation in the world when it comes to gun deaths per 100,000.
Their are about 45 nations better than the US.

The only nations worse than us by gun deaths per 100,000 are Columbia, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venenzula, and Honduras.

Hell, Mexico and Nicaragua are SAFER than the United States when it comes to gun deaths per 100,000.
That should tell you something.



https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ths-by-country

I am pro-gun...
But anyone with a brain realizes that America has a gun problem.

If you are going to argue for guns, please don't use lies to do it.



Hughinn, you honestly believe that countries with gun bans or stricter gun laws have LESS gun violence??


Please try reading the articles you post before you quote from them.

[flyinlow]

Joe Biden's lies about gun control. He lied his ass off.

https://youtu.be/l_YU4ii9mnM

https://therightscoop.com/heres-a-gr...ontrol-speech/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-...ess-conference


"No amendment to the constitution is absolute"- joe Biden

No tyrant in history has been bolder than to make such a proclamation that none of your rights are absolute. So much for the orange menace "destroying our constitution" eh? He never pulled anything like it. Could imagine the hysterics and outrage if Donald Trump made such a statement?

Coming from tha same people that want to take your means of self defense away, are now telling you , that none of your rights are absolute.

Let that sink in.

Let them take your guns away, and see just how many rights you'll have left. Much less what's absolute.

But hey 81 million people voted for this (OR SO WE'RE TOLD). Because what the he and the democrat party are pulling should come as no surprise. They've stolen trillions of your moneys. Now they want your guns.

I always have been & always will be a conspiracy theorist. Research Rotheschild's family history, JP Morgan told Tesla that his battery operated car won't be used unless he could put a meter on it. The unconstitutional ACT of 1871 is very interesting. Pretty much in 1871 Congress sold DC to the Corporation of United States owned by international bankers who financed our debt post the civil war. So on and so forth you get the gist.

When Trump won the 2016 election I was amazed. Not that he wouldn't win the actual electoral vote, but that the cabal or deep state allowed an outsider to win POTUS. That lead me to rabbit holes and researching Q drops etc. Still more questions than answers. It's still a mystery trying to understand how did Trump almost defeat the deep state with no assassination attempts(?)

The 2020 election mess is no surprise. Our rights to vote and have a free fair election will take a lot of effort to get back. When it comes to guns my guess is before 2024 there will be a real push to get ATF enforce certain gun laws on local LEO. Not sure how that works or will get enforced at a local level with LEO. During Hurricane Katrina local LEO and ATF did raids on affluent neighborhoods seizing firearms. (It's actually on video if you don't believe me) ... Problem, reaction = "solution"

They are certainly chipping away at our right to own a gun. Little by little. Sandy Hook bankrupted Remington. They won't let a crisis go to waste. My guess is take away guns will be the straw that broke the camels back. There's no logical reason to disarm law abiding citizens other than the obvious. Our right to vote & bear arms is obviously under attack like never before.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

I always have been & always will be a conspiracy theorist. Research Rotheschild's family history, JP Morgan told Tesla that his battery operated car won't be used unless he could put a meter on it. The unconstitutional ACT of 1871 is very interesting. Pretty much in 1871 Congress sold DC to the Corporation of United States owned by international bankers who financed our debt post the civil war. So on and so forth you get the gist.

When Trump won the 2016 election I was amazed. Not that he wouldn't win the actual electoral vote, but that the cabal or deep state allowed an outsider to win POTUS. That lead me to rabbit holes and researching Q drops etc. Still more questions than answers. It's still a mystery trying to understand how did Trump almost defeat the deep state with no assassination attempts(?)

The 2020 election mess is no surprise. Our rights to vote and have a free fair election will take a lot of effort to get back. When it comes to guns my guess is before 2024 there will be a real push to get ATF enforce certain gun laws on local LEO. Not sure how that works or will get enforced at a local level with LEO. During Hurricane Katrina local LEO and ATF did raids on affluent neighborhoods seizing firearms. (It's actually on video if you don't believe me) ... Problem, reaction = "solution"

They are certainly chipping away at our right to own a gun. Little by little. Sandy Hook bankrupted Remington. They won't let a crisis go to waste. My guess is take away guns will be the straw that broke the camels back. There's no logical reason to disarm law abiding citizens other than the obvious. Our right to vote & bear arms is obviously under attack like never before.

Why not start a new thread about your conspiracy theories?
I am sure you will find some like minded folk with whom to share ideas.

[wango]

Ha! Gross bathrooms, bullet proof glass between the cashier, they are nasty. But WI, IA gas stations you can eat off the floor, tasty pastries etc lol

You should have seen the Chicago area in the 60’s. Going to a Bulls or Blackhawks game felt like you put your life on the line going to the Chicago Stadium. Daly was corrupt, but cleaned a LOT of that mess up. Hell yeah there’s going to be worse areas. But “downtown” Michigan avenue, Lakeshore drive, Grant Park? Are you serious? Well drive around some sketchy places in Wisconsin and you’ll find the same.

Out where I live, it’s literally a 5 - 10 minute drive’s difference between Uber clean, Uber-safe wealthy public spaces and gang infested sh*t-hole neighborhoods that you best not show your lily white ass in.

[wango]

Probably standing in a puddle of piss to take a leak. I don't know how people can't aim and hit a urinal

Even in my gym. If you dare look down (edit: by the urinal), inevitably there is urine. Finish, shake and only then put your member back in your pants, lol.

[wango]

Ever seen has station bathrooms in louisiana?

They'd make illinois look like palaces.

The French Quarter in the morning is about as much fun as walking in a sewer. I’ve almost vomited.

[flyinlow]

You should have seen the Chicago area in the 60’s. Going to a Bulls or Blackhawks game felt like you put your life on the line going to the Chicago Stadium. Daly was corrupt, but cleaned a LOT of that mess up. Hell yeah there’s going to be worse areas. But “downtown” Michigan avenue, Lakeshore drive, Grant Park? Are you serious? Well drive around some sketchy places in Wisconsin and you’ll find the same.

Out where I live, it’s literally a 5 - 10 minute drive’s difference between Uber clean, Uber-safe wealthy public spaces and gang infested sh*t-hole neighborhoods that you best not show your lily white ass in.

haha, well believe it or not those thugs are a terrible shot. Just before I left River North neighborhood there was about 12 shell casings and not one person was dead. How do you discharge 12 shots without hitting a target? When I first moved to Chicago I was on the 3200 block of South Michigan Ave. Honestly I didn't have one issue. There are neighborhoods even cops won't patrol. Mayor Daily apparently knew how to deal with the city. I wish Cook county wasn't apart of the State of Illinois. It's nothing but a parasite. Our votes are cooked and House Speaker Madigan makes Peloski look like a saint. (slight sarcasm) The US elections for POTUS I was only one county off in my predicted outcome. I knew Lake, Champaign and Cook would be blue. 4 counties decided we are voting for Biden and honestly I think they cheated. We have been cheating US elections since JFK. Everyone wanted Trump and in Cook county I would say potentially 35% wanted another 4 years of Trump. We haven't had a republican Mayor of Chicago since Capone. That's seriously corrupt.

There's even presentations for the community to learn how to rip off the GOV. Don't marry, more kids, millions stolen in PPE $ from this pandemic. It's a problem not reversible and it's all created from Government enabling this designed outcome.

[wango]

haha, well believe it or not those thugs are a terrible shot. Just before I left River North neighborhood there was about 12 shell casings and not one person was dead. How do you discharge 12 shots without hitting a target? When I first moved to Chicago I was on the 3200 block of South Michigan Ave. Honestly I didn't have one issue. There are neighborhoods even cops won't patrol. Mayor Daily apparently knew how to deal with the city. I wish Cook county wasn't apart of the State of Illinois. It's nothing but a parasite. Our votes are cooked and House Speaker Madigan makes Peloski look like a saint. (slight sarcasm) The US elections for POTUS I was only one county off in my predicted outcome. I knew Lake, Champaign and Cook would be blue. 4 counties decided we are voting for Biden and honestly I think they cheated. We have been cheating US elections since JFK. Everyone wanted Trump and in Cook county I would say potentially 35% wanted another 4 years of Trump. We haven't had a republican Mayor of Chicago since Capone. That's seriously corrupt.

There's even presentations for the community to learn how to rip off the GOV. Don't marry, more kids, millions stolen in PPE $ from this pandemic. It's a problem not reversible and it's all created from Government enabling this designed outcome.

The corruption worked to our advantage when I was there. In south Chicago where I worked, there was a strip bar that paid off the police so they actually could offer more than lap dances in a private downstairs area. Feel like drinking past 5 a.m. and into the next morning, while eating breakfast? We had places for that too. If the police knew you were a decent guy, you never got a ticket. Sometimes corruption ain’t too bad at times, lol.

[flyinlow]

Bro, you have no idea who you are talking to... lololol This little Iowa boy But yes it is always greasing palms in IL & its only at the expense to the tax dollar who earn an honest paycheck. It is malicious, disgusting, repulsive and Godless.

[wango]

Bro, you have no idea who you are talking to... lololol This little Iowa boy But yes it is always greasing palms in IL & its only at the expense to the tax dollar who earn an honest paycheck. It is malicious, disgusting, repulsive and Godless.

Bro, TY, I like bro. Someone else here uses sir and I don’t like it as it makes me feel old.

I never assumed that I do know you as we’ve exchanged 2 posts and you are a new member. I don’t get the little Iowa’s boy reference. So, introduce yourself so that I have a better understanding.

Have you lived in Southern Illinois? I did some of my education there and dated a farmers daughter. They sure as shit weren’t repulsive or Godless. I was best man to a buddy in Southern Illinois. A God loving, Baptist church going guy. As decent a fellow as you can meet. Malicious, disgusting? Pump your brakes on the generalizations.

So, you’ve seen some negative crap in Chicago, wow.

Yup breaking the law sucks and is repulsive. Just why are you on a forum dedicated to such a thing if it’s so Godless? Are you here to enlighten the sinners?

[Hughinn]

You read your own article completely backwards. Or you outright lied. Which is it?

The US is the 7th WORST nation in the world when it comes to gun deaths per 100,000.
Their are about 45 nations better than the US.

The only nations worse than us by gun deaths per 100,000 are Columbia, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venenzula, and Honduras.

Hell, Mexico and Nicaragua are SAFER than the United States when it comes to gun deaths per 100,000.
That should tell you something.



https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ths-by-country

I am pro-gun...
But anyone with a brain realizes that America has a gun problem.

If you are going to argue for guns, please don't use lies to do it.



Hughinn, you honestly believe that countries with gun bans or stricter gun laws have LESS gun violence??


Please try reading the articles you post before you quote from them.

Sir, you've misunderstood my point entirely. Disregarded and misinterpreted the data relative to my point, then took the chance to sling insults and call names once again. No need to keep on with the insults.

You could've asked me for clarification instead of slinging insults, but I see that's just not your way.
If you insist on displaying idiocy, sling insults and hatred, then go right ahead. Obviously the moderators here will allow you to do so. You've already declined the chance to insult me in person. Which tells me all I need to know. Words from such a person do not offend me. But it does make debate suffer and the forum look bad.

So, in the name of civil , honest discourse,
Please allow me to clarify.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esti...ita_by_country

The data shows clearly that the number of firearms per capita in a nation is not the sole, nor major contributor to gun violence.

Cross examination of gun violence with firearms per capita shows that some of the most violent places, don't necessarily have alot of guns in circulation relative to others with lower gun violence and higher firearms per capita.

This clearly means that less guns guarantees less gun violence is not an accurate statement. Certainly not in it's entirety. The data provided proves this clearly.

Because obviously places with less guns and more gun violence points to other factors at work. Socioeconomic, poverty, crime, oppressive government, organized crime etc. People don't kill other people just because they have guns and want to use them.

Guns themselves are not the issue as much as conditions that make people think they have to use them. The "gun problem" isn't a problem with guns, it's a civic problem. There are some nations with lots of guns per capita and lower gun violence. There are nations with far less guns per capita and extremely high gun violence.

Anybody with a brain can logically come to the conclusion that less guns guarantees less gun violence is not an accurate statement. At least not entirely.

In addition guns per capita also doesn't necessarily correlate to intentional homicide rates either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._homicide_rate

We can see the data shows the homicide rates per capita do not necessarily reflect the number of guns in circulation either. Once again we see many other factors of various sorts at play here.

My entire point was that fewer guns guarantees less gun violence isn't true. And the data I supplied supports that point. Furthermore, insinuating that less guns means less homicides is also not accurate in it's entirety.

Harvard published this report
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/

Where they make the same claim we always hear. Thier "studies" support thier opinions. But the overall publically available data does not.


Like it or not. That's the way it is. No amount of hysterics and insults will change it sir.

[Hughinn]

Ha! Gross bathrooms, bullet proof glass between the cashier, they are nasty. But WI, IA gas stations you can eat off the floor, tasty pastries etc lol

I always have been & always will be a conspiracy theorist. Research Rotheschild's family history, JP Morgan told Tesla that his battery operated car won't be used unless he could put a meter on it. The unconstitutional ACT of 1871 is very interesting. Pretty much in 1871 Congress sold DC to the Corporation of United States owned by international bankers who financed our debt post the civil war. So on and so forth you get the gist.

When Trump won the 2016 election I was amazed. Not that he wouldn't win the actual electoral vote, but that the cabal or deep state allowed an outsider to win POTUS. That lead me to rabbit holes and researching Q drops etc. Still more questions than answers. It's still a mystery trying to understand how did Trump almost defeat the deep state with no assassination attempts(?)

The 2020 election mess is no surprise. Our rights to vote and have a free fair election will take a lot of effort to get back. When it comes to guns my guess is before 2024 there will be a real push to get ATF enforce certain gun laws on local LEO. Not sure how that works or will get enforced at a local level with LEO. During Hurricane Katrina local LEO and ATF did raids on affluent neighborhoods seizing firearms. (It's actually on video if you don't believe me) ... Problem, reaction = "solution"

They are certainly chipping away at our right to own a gun. Little by little. Sandy Hook bankrupted Remington. They won't let a crisis go to waste. My guess is take away guns will be the straw that broke the camels back. There's no logical reason to disarm law abiding citizens other than the obvious. Our right to vote & bear arms is obviously under attack like never before.

The 2016 election was a shock because they didn't bother to cheat as much.

The democrat party was broke. Deep in debt to very powerful people who expected returns on thier investment.

Hillary was supposed to win. All thier "anylists" and "experts" told them so. Thier army of bellowing, drooling zombies were all gawking over Hillary. The script was written, the cat was in the bag.

When she lost, those shareholders knew they were going to lose on thier investment. So they went on a full force all out propoganda war.

The 2020 election was simply the empire strikes back. The corporate class got thier way, the billionaire class bought the outcome they wanted.

The democrat party is basically a globalist PR firm. They sell american policy to wealthy investors. In a nutshell.
They sell horsecrap slogans and meaningless catch phrases like "systemic racism' and "racial justice" to thier brainwashed multitude to keep the power of public office. And they sell american policy and money laundering services to wealthy elites and investor's.

Since they cheated the 2020 election and pillaged the federal reserve for trillions they are now emboldened and swimming in cash. The shareholders are getting paid thier divedends in foreign policy and the DNC propoganda machine has plenty money to work with on the next few election cycles.

Be advised, if you begin to preach the truth about the democrat party here, you will invite the wrath of some of the DNC indoctrinated masses that exist here. They'll do all of the typical and predictable things any of them always do. Accuse you of some kind of "ism" or "ist'. Howl racist or whatever, then begin insults and name calling to the point of irrationality. Harmless in reality. But be prepared. Backing up your theories with hard logic and demonstrable fact will only enrage them. They are that far gone. Just be aware.