H2O MAN
 
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 09:23 am

This liberal hysteria about guns and gun ownership has prevented the masses from addressing criminals with guns.

Armed criminals are not even on the radar screen of any liberal anti-gun activists or democrat anti-freedom advocates.

Proggies are OK with criminals being armed with whatever gun they choose, it's the law abiding individual they have a problem with.
 
Phoenix32890
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 10:05 am
@H2O MAN,
Oh, you are so right. I would love to see a statistic (if there is one) about the number of crimes committed by criminals, who acquired a gun illegally, as opposed to law abiding citizens. (That sounds funny, but I think that you will get my meaning).
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 05:33 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Ill be surprised if he does.
0 Replies
 
DavJohanis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 05:37 pm
@H2O MAN,
Law abiding citizens who bought them in the first place?
You ignore that?

They rarely fall off a boat, tracing results most often (unless dealing with named and organised systematic gangs) to owners bought them years ago.

I doubt u knew that.

D.
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 07:00 pm
@DavJohanis,
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. There are those people who buy guns that "fell off the truck", with no background check. There are others who buy guns in accordance with state laws. In my state, unless you have a concealed carry permit, you cannot pay for and walk off with a gun. You have to wait three days, while you are being checked out by law enforcement.
DavJohanis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 07:12 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Ahh, yes I get your point.

Though you must be aware that the redneck with a job and a drinking habit does wait three days.

Oh, well, the incessant shifting of minor arguments around 'what is everything'.. are growing tired in the thousands of hours...

Adieu for now, mon petite lioness.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 09:20 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:

There are those people who buy guns that "fell off the truck", with no background check.


Those people (both the buyer & seller) are considered criminals.

The black market has all sorts of goodies that are not available to the law abiding citizen.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 09:47 pm


Chicago Has Tough Gun Laws,
But Leads Nation in Gun Violence
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 03:02 pm
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/77021_3446838269226_320055385_n.jpg
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:42 am

What is Obama's real agenda?

What is Obama's plan to get guns out of the hands of criminals?
0 Replies
 
DavJohanis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 07:39 am
@H2O MAN,
We do actually blame cars.. They can go too fast, some think.
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 07:46 am
@DavJohanis,


Ignore the drunk operator and blame the vehicle... that's the democratic way.

Next you'll say the rape victim was asking for it.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 08:14 am


PRAVDA: Americans never give up your guns

2.2012

By Stanislav Mishin

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.


Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Stanislav Mishin
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 08:16 am


... These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 08:27 am

Aug 1, 2012
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court’s most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

“It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. “We’ll see,” he said. ‘”It will have to be decided.”
As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” he told host Chris Wallace.

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. “You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can’t be a pig,” said Scalia, of the court’s decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. “There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax.”

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. “My wife doesn’t want me hanging around the house,” he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. “Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo” what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said. source – Fox News
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 09:15 am


Criminals do not respect individual rights and freedoms... neither do Obama & Biden.
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 11:34 am

WaterBuoy is about this close to having a major meltdown, just like his best bud Alex Jones did on CNN the other night...
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 12:10 pm


The 1st time I ever saw or listened to Alex Jones was when he handed that Brit pussy his head during a CNN interview.

Jones did a great job of impersonating a liberal attack dog, except he was armed with facts, something libs never arm themselves with.

I am no fan of Jones, but he did a pretty good job with that hack that fled the UK.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2013 12:13 pm


If the economy was better I wouldn't have the 'spare time' to come here and refute liberal BS.

Obama & Biden should focus on the big problem - our economy and out of control government spending.
0 Replies
 
genefog2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2013 08:57 am
@H2O MAN,
I believe this picture turned up on facebook on Citizens for Responsible Gun Ownership. The guy also asked why the bans on drunk driving dont stop it from happening and why we dont take cars from booze fiends, and of course no one answered.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Criminals with guns
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/07/2020 at 02:10:27