Will this election also be decided by the perverse American fetish for GUNS?

So your argument is that you and your ilk are criminals that would not comply with a legal turn-in requirement and who would willingly and cheerfully break the law to retain the ability to murder people.

The gun nuts don’t care about the law, unless they can use it to hurt people.

Loaded reply. Not surprised. But I will answer.
If I actually owned firearms, no. I would not. The only way they would be restricted/confiscated would be unconstitutional in itself. Unless if being a legal owner I get absolute assurance that every criminal will be disarmed as well and that the military is infallible and police would arrive in a matter of seconds… But none of that is going to happen anyway. At best you’d get a fraction. Of people turning them in, but that won’t even happen. 2A is here to stay. Keep dreaming.

It’s all it about guaranteed Defense. Your hyperbole is exhausting. Criminals don’t care about the law. All you would do is disarm responsible people.
If you dare to bring up mass shootings and the people dying from it, please look into city and gang violence. UCR Data from the FBI. Prohibition works well there, doesn’t it? And it’s not white supremacists or ‘gun nuts’ doing all of that killing. Hypocrisy at its finest.

No, it’s about right wing terrorism. Guns don’t defend anyone.

Your crazy-ass hyperbole might hold water if we were trying to ban lefties from accessing weapons, but, nope, your crazy-ass self can buy guns too if you feel this way.

So in a thread lamenting the yokels who will vote to make America a shit-hole because their infatuation with a surrogate penis dominates all their other political “thoughts,” the Trumpists can only talk about Guns, Guns, Guns. Self-awareness isn’t their strong suit.

And at least one of the gun nuts [looks at Annoying] repeatedly indulges in the “Guns are an American constitutional right because guns are an American constitutional right” tautology. Again, this “thinking” — which might get good marks in kindergarten — was denounced in OP.

Almost every post by Annoying reeks of stupidity; I clicked this one almost at random.

In fact humans with a generous spirit and a rational brain are much less likely than Trumpnuts and racists to even want guns. If/when the streets of the U.S.A. are fraught with civil strife, the racists, haters and imbeciles will have the firepower advantage. I think Annoying will be happy to know this. But instead he pretends to assume that rational and good-spirited people have the same flawed values and cognition as his ilk.

This view shows innumeracy and lack of logic; and anyway is NOT what the Founders intended.

So I guess you’re okay with people getting killed by gang violence in the inner city, as long as they are POC?

No, the point is that people freak out about body counts, white supremacists, and Republicans, yet ignore leftwing terrorism, their democrat enablers and the fact that both overall murder rates AND mass shootings (as defined by the FBI) are not committed by white people, Republicans, or “the right”.

Yet somehow all of this is “the rights” fault, when it’s not. Not even a little.

I’m interested in freaking out about leftwing terrorism. Got any specific incidents I can freak out about?


Are they still upset about the time petite Yvette Felarca shoved a Nazi with her bare hands? Curious to know whether Annoying is one of the dunderheads who agreed with his ideological mentor here:

Look, I recognize that it’s a dangerous world, at least our corner of it. If you want a gun to protect you home, your family, or your business, I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t hunt, but if that’s the way you choose to spend your time, unless you’ve demonstrated an inability to do so safely like, say, Dick Cheney, I have no problem with that. But the ability to throw enough lead in thirty seconds to kill nine people and injure twenty-seven others is not something that should be in the hands of any moron with a pulse. And anybody who thinks otherwise flirts with being in that category themselves.


Always the reaching for a racial narrative. I’m actually surprised it took this long for someone to say it.

It’s not okay. I was illustrating a point of hypocrisy in regards to firearm restrictions and actual per capita firearm related crimes. Banning only restricts the majority of responsible legal owners whereas criminals are barely affected.

Protip: Suggestions and allusions to bigotry and racism in such a sense is akin and almost synonymous with Godwin’s law in principle. You automatically forfeit an argument if you go that route.

This is a fair, lucid and excellent argument. I appreciate this.

Your indignation would be far more interesting to me if it weren’t covered in crap. You tried to obfuscate the discussion by dragging in non-sequitors, and then got butt-hurt when you got called out on it.

Don’t want to get shot down? Don’t take Snoopy’s doghouse-Sopwith-camel into the No-Fly Zone.

I’m still waiting for those left-wing terrorism incidents. I haven’t freaked out about anything today yet.

If guns were outlawed, then there would be by definition no responsible legal owners. Everyone who had a gun would be a criminal. But you seem to be working with some definition of “criminal” other than “someone who commits crimes”, because you seem to feel it would be reasonable for people to commit* that *particular crime. So, if it isn’t a person’s actions that makes them a criminal, what is it? Why is it that some people who own guns illegally are “criminals” and others “responsible legal owners”? I’m finding it hard to imagine a plausible answer that doesn’t, in your oh so snowflakey phrase, “reach for a racial narrative”.

Set aside for the moment the legality of owning a gun in the first place, and ask if someone has ever used a gun as a tool in the furtherance of a crime: murder; attempted murder; assault and battery; armed robbery; terroristic threats; vandalism; poaching. These do somehow seem morally and ethically different from a mere scofflaw, unless one is so hoplophobic as to define the mere possession of a firearm as “depraved indifference” to the well-being of others. “No excuses, The Law is The Law” as an excuse for demanding unquestioning compliance to the dictates of government has long been recognized as a morally bankrupt stance.

OK, maybe the righties do have more guns, but the left knows how to build bombs that work.

I guess you’ve forgotten all the people slaughtered by Antifa and Hillary during the Bowling Green massacre :smiley:

Forget it. Don’t hold your breath. That asshole won’t be coming back with any REAL evidence or cites.