Can liberals answer these 7 observations/ questions about guns and their use/history?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1. Can liberals explain why they and the leftist news media promote the NRA as a villain when the NRA’s agenda is protecting the Second Amendment and teaching gun safety and responsibility?

2. Can liberals explain how citizens are to protect their homes and lives and families from intruders and attackers without a gun?

3. Can liberals explain why a ban on semi-automatic rifles and extended ammunition clips would have saved children’s lives at the Sandy Hook school and armed security would not have?

4. Can liberals explain why the sentence, “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” is not in fact a truth?

5. Can liberals explain how banning semi-automatic rifles and extended clips will keep those items out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs when they don’t bother respecting gun laws or any laws?

6. Can liberals explain why the states that have conceal carry laws have lower rates of gun crime that states and cities that have very strict gun control laws?

7. Can liberals explain how America would have won Independence from a tyrannical British King if guns had been banned in America by the British?

Those seven questions point out the ignorance of liberals and the many flaws in their agenda.-Tyr

[tailfins]

1. Can liberals explain why they and the leftist news media promote the NRA as a villain when the NRA’s agenda is protecting the Second Amendment and teaching gun safety and responsibility?
Because NRA money helps elect conservatives


2. Can liberals explain how citizens are to protect their homes and lives and families from intruders and attackers without a gun?
If there were sufficient government giveaways, burglaries would be too much trouble

3. Can liberals explain why a ban on semi-automatic rifles and extended ammunition clips would have saved children’s lives at the Sandy Hook school and armed security would not have?
It's important to always do "something".

4. Can liberals explain why the sentence, “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” is not in fact a truth?
Again, if we have enough government giveaways, almost no one would want to be an outlaw

5. Can liberals explain how banning semi-automatic rifles and extended clips will keep those items out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs when they don’t bother respecting gun laws or any laws?
For a third time, if the government spends enough money, there will be very few criminals and nut jobs (except for Limbaugh listeners, of course)

6. Can liberals explain why the states that have conceal carry laws have lower rates of gun crime that states and cities that have very strict gun control laws?
Because the cities with strict gun laws have insufficient funding.

7. Can liberals explain how America would have won Independence from a tyrannical British King if guns had been banned in America by the British?



Who says they should have? Britain is a far more advanced society. Even Canada is more progressive having kept their loyalty to the Crown.
Those seven questions point out the ignorance of liberals and the many flaws in their agenda.-Tyr



I hope I cleared that up for ya'!

[DragonStryk72]

Y'know what? Fuck it, I'm gonna see if I can answer this seriously from a liberal perspective.



1. Can liberals explain why they and the leftist news media promote the NRA as a villain when the NRA’s agenda is protecting the Second Amendment and teaching gun safety and responsibility? Because the NRA gets in the way of every decent piece of gun legislation we try to pass, most often going back to that old saw about how we needs guns to protect us from the government.


2. Can liberals explain how citizens are to protect their homes and lives and families from intruders and attackers without a gun? Well, if the criminals no longer have guns, then the average citizen won't need a gun either, now would they? As well, how many gun-related deaths are a result of someone thinking that their kid coming through the window at night is an intruder?



3. Can liberals explain why a ban on semi-automatic rifles and extended ammunition clips would have saved children’s lives at the Sandy Hook school and armed security would not have? We would love to have policemen in schools, as that would certainly make things safer all around. By banning semi-automatic rifles and extended ammunition, we lower the local supply, decreasing the chances of getting such a weapon.

4. Can liberals explain why the sentence, “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” is not in fact a truth? Well, we're not really trying to outlaw guns. We're just trying to make sure that the bad people can't get a hold of them, and to restrict the guns most commonly used in crimes and mass murders.

5. Can liberals explain how banning semi-automatic rifles and extended clips will keep those items out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs when they don’t bother respecting gun laws or any laws? The Sandy Hook shooter is an anomaly, though we of course will take measures to protect the children in any way we can, such as having police on school property. As I stated before, banning those items will reduce the supply in the local area, while limited clip size could result in a lower body count as the killer has to reload more often.

6. Can liberals explain why the states that have conceal carry laws have lower rates of gun crime that states and cities that have very strict gun control laws? The cities with very strict gun control laws have them for good reason, due to the greater population densities that exist in those states. Without those laws in place, the problem could be so much worse than it already is.

7. Can liberals explain how America would have won Independence from a tyrannical British King if guns had been banned in America by the British?
Well, certainly in times of war against a force like the English in the Revolutionary War, then sure, we should arm up, as needs be. Further, the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned a world with even semi-automatic fire, let alone fully automatic weapons with laser sights and hollow point rounds or armor piercing bullets.


Those seven questions point out the ignorance of liberals and the many flaws in their agenda.-Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

4. Can liberals explain why the sentence, “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” is not in fact a truth? Well, we're not really trying to outlaw guns. We're just trying to make sure that the bad people can't get a hold of them, and to restrict the guns most commonly used in crimes and mass murders.

Simply not accurate.

For instance, in California...
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf

Of the 147 firearms examined, there were...
120 (81.6 percent) handguns
13 (8.8 percent) rifles
11 (7.5 percent) shotguns
3 (2 percent) machine guns


Of these firearms, 8 (5.4 percent) were assault weapons (as defined in California Penal code section 12276)
1 (0.7 percent) was classified as a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.


The most commonly encountered caliber was 9 mm Luger, followed by .22 rimfire and
.40 Smith & Wesson (S&W), and .380 automatic.



According to the Bureau of Justice...
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Of allfirearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns.

The top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. in 2000, according to an unpublished study by U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms...
http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/images/pistols_2000.jpg
Funny... I don't see 'assault weapons' or 30 round clips or anything in there.





NONE of the gun legislation being considered will restrict handguns, and they accoutn for the vast majority of guns used in crimes.

[Little-Acorn]

7. Can liberals explain how America would have won Independence from a tyrannical British King if guns had been banned in America by the British?


The War for American Independence started when the British issued a gun ban, and then sent troops to confiscate privately-owned guns held by the Americans. (238 years ago today, in fact.) The Americans lined up with their guns and basically told them "Molon labe", and the Shot Heard Round the World was fired.

With the way things have been going in this country recently, some folks have started referring to that as "The First War for American Independence".

[Thunderknuckles]

I'll take a crack at this fun little game :)


1. Can liberals explain why they and the leftist news media promote the NRA as a villain when the NRA’s agenda is protecting the Second Amendment and teaching gun safety and responsibility?
Because the NRA are villains whose purpose is to put guns in the hands of every American and promote violence.

2. Can liberals explain how citizens are to protect their homes and lives and families from intruders and attackers without a gun?
The government will protect you.

3. Can liberals explain why a ban on semi-automatic rifles and extended ammunition clips would have saved children’s lives at the Sandy Hook school and armed security would not have?
Banning those items would ensure that those with criminal intent will NEVER have the opportunity to acquire them.

4. Can liberals explain why the sentence, “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns” is not in fact a truth?
It IS truth.

5. Can liberals explain how banning semi-automatic rifles and extended clips will keep those items out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs when they don’t bother respecting gun laws or any laws?
Trust us, it will.

6. Can liberals explain why the states that have conceal carry laws have lower rates of gun crime that states and cities that have very strict gun control laws?
That is a lie perpetrated by the villains in question 1.

7. Can liberals explain how America would have won Independence from a tyrannical British King if guns had been banned in America by the British?
The French.

[aboutime]

Y'know what? Fuck it, I'm gonna see if I can answer this seriously from a liberal perspective.


DragonStryk. NOW, after trying to pretend to think like a liberal. TAKE 10 Aspirin, or Tylenol. Take a long shower. Take some EX-LAX, and force yourself to PUKE.

That will rid your body of those dangerous, dumb, liberal tendencies that may haunt you, and everyone else you know...ETERNALLY.

[DragonStryk72]

DragonStryk. NOW, after trying to pretend to think like a liberal. TAKE 10 Aspirin, or Tylenol. Take a long shower. Take some EX-LAX, and force yourself to PUKE.

That will rid your body of those dangerous, dumb, liberal tendencies that may haunt you, and everyone else you know...ETERNALLY.

Nah, I just threw in a few episodes of Firefly, and that pretty much took care of things.

[DragonStryk72]

Simply not accurate.

For instance, in California...
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf


According to the Bureau of Justice...
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF


The top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. in 2000, according to an unpublished study by U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms...
http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm




NONE of the gun legislation being considered will restrict handguns, and they accoutn for the vast majority of guns used in crimes.

Not particularly gonna argue you there. My point was to simply use the core thesis of the arguments I'd heard out of those in favor of greater gun control.

The true way, I think, to lower gun crime is to attack poverty, and acknowledge serious mental issues. In the case of both the Aurora shooter, and the Sandy Hook shooter, they were known to be not right in the head, but in the case of SH, the shooter had been listed as being a danger, hence why they wanted to keep him from being able to own or purchase weapons, but really, everything is a weapon, so why wasn't he in a padded room somewhere where they could get him therapy?

As to poverty as central point of crime, well it makes sense. You don't see rich people out knocking over liquor stores or anything of the sort. You don't even see it with people who are moderately well-off. It's pretty always going to be the poor people who do it, because they have a material lack that "needs" to get filled. So, if we combat poverty effectively, we also combat gun crimes.

[aboutime]

Nah, I just threw in a few episodes of Firefly, and that pretty much took care of things.



:clap:

[Robert A Whit]

Y'know what? Fuck it, I'm gonna see if I can answer this seriously from a liberal perspective.

I never met a libertarian till today that does not believe we have the right to self defense.

I am in awe of your anti self defense posts.

Ever wonder why Lanza headed to a school rather than the local police station?

The school was not armed. Police stations don't get attacked.

They are armed and can defend themselves.

[Robert A Whit]

Not particularly gonna argue you there. My point was to simply use the core thesis of the arguments I'd heard out of those in favor of greater gun control.

The true way, I think, to lower gun crime is to attack poverty, and acknowledge serious mental issues. In the case of both the Aurora shooter, and the Sandy Hook shooter, they were known to be not right in the head, but in the case of SH, the shooter had been listed as being a danger, hence why they wanted to keep him from being able to own or purchase weapons, but really, everything is a weapon, so why wasn't he in a padded room somewhere where they could get him therapy?

As to poverty as central point of crime, well it makes sense. You don't see rich people out knocking over liquor stores or anything of the sort. You don't even see it with people who are moderately well-off. It's pretty always going to be the poor people who do it, because they have a material lack that "needs" to get filled. So, if we combat poverty effectively, we also combat gun crimes.

I did not realize your first post was a spoof. I feel much better reading the above.

Attacking poverty is very difficult. Thus means B is in charge of helping out A. A however is not in a mood to help himself or herself. They enjoy how they now live.

Sadly when one wants to do better, they must take charge and do better.
If the poor could be forced to attend self help classes,***** but that is not the way freedom works.

[DragonStryk72]

I did not realize your first post was a spoof. I feel much better reading the above.

Attacking poverty is very difficult. Thus means B is in charge of helping out A. A however is not in a mood to help himself or herself. They enjoy how they now live.

Sadly when one wants to do better, they must take charge and do better.
If the poor could be forced to attend self help classes,***** but that is not the way freedom works.

Know your self, and know your enemy, have naught to fear in a hundred battles.

Well, in truth, A most times doesn't want to try because they've failed so many times before, and have gotten used to that failure, not seeing that they have now begun to reinforce the cycle of poverty over themselves. I admit, having been laid off several times in the last few years of this economy, it's very difficult to keep finding the faith needed to believe that things are going to get better. You fill out hundreds of applications for everything under the sun, jumping for any job that offers, you start going to Labor Ready, and sign up for Manpower, and you keep going over Craig's List, snagging what gigs you can, and oh the interviews. Interview after interview, and with each one that doesn't call back, you get weighed down just that little bit more.

Then you sit there, trying to get help, only to either be denied for something idiotic, or receive less help because you, unlike others around you, didn't try to game the system. So, without noticing, you start to give up, not just on a job, but yourself too.

The majority of poor people are trying, they haven't made significant headway in about five years or so. Sure, there are those the really are just lazy, but that's not really the vast majority of the poor.