Highland park IL 4th of July parade shooting

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

Right now, banning assualt rifles

Already banned.

You can't even speak intelligently on this topic. You lack even the basic comprehension of this subject. This is why no one takes you seriously. You didn't even know the difference between a clip and a magazine a page ago. You think long barrel rifles are an issue when SBRs are much more of a concern. You use made up definitions that fit the narrative you are trying to spin. You are scared of something because you were told to be.

Keep on being a troll.

If you at least educated yourself on the topic at hand maybe you could add to the discussion? Doubtful given your trolling etc. But maybe there is a chance?

[Torgus]

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Already banned.

You can't even speak intelligently on this topic. You lack even the basic comprehension of this subject. This is why no one takes you seriously. You didn't even know the difference between a clip and a magazine a page ago. You think long barrel rifles are an issue when SBRs are much more of a concern. You use made up definitions that fit the narrative you are trying to spin. You are scared of something because you were told to be.

You're nitpicking silly gun details in an effort to deflect from the real conservation we should be having.

With respect to "basic comprehension of this subject", how many gun owners do you know really understand the ins and outs of the guns they own, the terminology, the intended purpose of a particular gun, safety, handling, etc.? You know it's a large majority that don't know squat. They just think the gun is cool and "fun to shoot".

I have a number of friends with AR-15 style rifles and only one of those friends is truly proficient and routinely practices/competes with it as a sport. He finds it hilarious and disturbing that so many look to these rifles as a home defense, hunting, or "plinking" rifle. He admits it is a rifle with one purpose, to kill many people quickly with a light weight, compact, and easy to shoot rifle. It is afterall the same rifle platform issued to the US military. He has tons of guns and he is fully supportive of more FEDERAL regulation regarding the acquisition and ownership of these types of rifles to the point that he thinks it needs to be a special license or registration. He also feels that anyone under 25 should not be able to own, shoot, or handle one of these rifles given the number of these shootings done by young males.

The majority in this country want AR-15 style rifles more regulated and some even want them banned. Banning is a big stretch now because there are millions of them in the US that can be resold and you can't take them away either. These rifles didn't sell very well prior to the ban. Not until a number of public mass shootings took place in the 2010s (after the 2004 ban was lifted) and people started calling for more regulations/bans did sales skyrocket....which is rather odd.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

You're nitpicking silly gun details in an effort to deflect from the real conservation we should be having.

No. If you don't even comprehend the most basic facts you can't add to the discussion. Period.

Clip vs. magazine is a big difference
Assault Weapon being automatic is huge
Weapons of War is a made up term by left leaning politicians

You can't make up definitions and claim things are facts when they are opinions and expect anyone to take you or CBtroll seriously.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

With respect to "basic comprehension of this subject", how many gun owners do you know really understand the ins and outs of the guns they own, the terminology, the intended purpose of a particular gun, safety, handling, etc.?

You have to take a 8 hour class at a state licensed facility, pass two separate tests, get finger printed, fill out a questionnaire, a very thorough background check that includes your parents identity, two personal references, disclose your employer, and then have to ask your local police chief to approve your firearms license and give in writing why you feel the need to have a firearms license. It takes months in my state just to be able to buy your 1st firearm and not everyone gets approved.

Literally everyone I know and I know roughly 15 owners of firearms, not including all the members of the Rod and Gun clubs I run into, know how to safely use and dissemble their firearms. If you own a gun you have to know how to disassemble & reassemble it to clean it etc. You shoot, they get dirty. Last time I bought a firearm the store showed me how to dissemble it and every function of the firearm without me asking. They were amazingly, almost to the point of being annoyingly, thorough.

Even my wife knows the difference between a clip and a magazine and she only owns 1 pistol and is not very knowledgeable regarding firearms in general, other than her own personal firearm that is.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

You know it's a large majority that don't know squat.

You have a source for that 'fact' or did you just make that up? Please cite source. Facts not opinions/feelings move discussions along.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I have a number of friends with AR-15 style rifles and only one of those friends is truly proficient and routinely practices/competes with it as a sport. He finds it hilarious and disturbing that so many look to these rifles as a home defense, hunting, or "plinking" rifle. He admits it is a rifle with one purpose, to kill many people quickly with a light weight, compact, and easy to shoot rifle.

1 person's opinion. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Why do we care about what he thinks? What do his opinions and feelings add to this discussion? A person none of us have ever met.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

He has tons of guns and he is fully supportive of more FEDERAL regulation regarding the acquisition and ownership of these types of rifles to the point that he thinks it needs to be a special license or registration. He also feels that anyone under 25 should not be able to own, shoot, or handle one of these rifles given the number of these shootings done by young males.

Why do we care about what your 'made up' friend 'thinks and feels' again?

Do you care what uncle Jim Bob thinks? What about Pedo Peter's thoughts on the subject?

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The majority in this country want AR-15 style rifles more regulated and some even want them banned.

and your point is..?

The majority of this country wants abortions to be legal in every state.

The majority didn't vote for president Trump.

The majority does not dictate to the minority in this country which is EXACTLY how our founding fathers set our republic up. Tyranny from the masses.

By the end of 2023 there will be over 400 million firearms in circulation and 21 million AR-style firearms in the US, according to the NSSF. You could ban it today, will never pass SCOTUS, and there will still be 20 million of them.

Just deal with it.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Already banned.

You can't even speak intelligently on this topic. You lack even the basic comprehension of this subject. This is why no one takes you seriously. You didn't even know the difference between a clip and a magazine a page ago. You think long barrel rifles are an issue when SBRs are much more of a concern. You use made up definitions that fit the narrative you are trying to spin. You are scared of something because you were told to be.

Keep on being a troll.

If you at least educated yourself on the topic at hand maybe you could add to the discussion? Doubtful given your trolling etc. But maybe there is a chance?

Hmm, from the Oxford Dictionary - a chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun. "he took the machine gun and a spare magazine"

I would suggest you also learn the definition of the word, colloquially - in the language of ordinary or familiar conversation; informally.


See, you're able to nitpick him because you knew what he meant. Stop trying to be pedantic. Do we need to give you the definition of that one as well, or are you getting the point?

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

Hmm, from the Oxford Dictionary - a chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun. "he took the machine gun and a spare magazine"

I would suggest you also learn the definition of the word, colloquially - in the language of ordinary or familiar conversation; informally.

See, you're able to nitpick him because you knew what he meant. Stop trying to be pedantic. Do we need to give you the definition of that one as well, or are you getting the point?

Only gang bangers and the uneducated interchange the word clip and magazine. It is the equivalent of me using wagon wheel and tire to mean the same thing. But you would not know that because of your lack of information on the subject.

This is what happens when idiots who don't know anything talk about gun control:

Don't be like him. Educate yourself on the topic at hand and add to the discussion. If you know the difference between clip and magazine use the correct term. If you don't know the difference, educate yourself, then come back and try and add something to the discussion.


Imagine trying to write a law:
>I want to ban all clips
Ok what about magazines?
>They mean the same thing to me so just write clip.
>Ok...

See not having the basic understanding does not allow you to intelligently discuss the topic at hand. You could educate yourselves on firearms, gun control history, the differences between a BAR and AR15, etc. in a few hours online and then come back and join in the discussion and have it be meaningful. Instead you want to use whatever made up words fit your narrative. Like Weapons of War.

Here we go again:
I want to ban all weapons of war
>Can you define what that means?
You know what I mean. The black ones I hear about on the news.
>So the BAR is still legal even though it is just as capable?
Yes, I don't know what a BAR is but I know AR15 = bad. I want to ban that and all weapons of war
>Ok...


These are the most basic terms when speaking about firearms. I am not asking you the difference between direct blowback vs delayed blowback and it's implication am I?


Let's have a discussion about our rights but use silly made up words used by politicians to to push an agenda. Yeah that makes perfect sense. Guaranteed to have a successful educated discussion that way! Said nobody ever.

[OkieSnuffBox]

I can't imagine what an angry and insecure person you are in real life, since all you really seem to care about is attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you and telling them they are stupid.

So on that note, I'm just going to bow out of this thread.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

I can't imagine what an angry and insecure person you are in real life, since all you really seem to care about is attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you and telling them they are stupid.

So on that note, I'm just going to bow out of this thread.

Have you ever noticed the ones that call others uneducated tend to be the uneducated ones?

There seems to be a whole political Ecosystem where the head of their ecosystem accuses people and calls people names, but does the same things himself in actuality. These people take their lead from him, and live in a completely upside down world.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Just deal with it.

The "data" you requested regarding the majority in the US wanting more gun control, here you go:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/11036...-buffalo-biden

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ontrol-measure

As you said, we live in a democracy. I think you'll be the one that will have to "deal with it".

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Torgus

No. If you don't even comprehend the most basic facts you can't add to the discussion. Period.

Clip vs. magazine is a big difference
Assault Weapon being automatic is huge
Weapons of War is a made up term by left leaning politicians

You can't make up definitions and claim things are facts when they are opinions and expect anyone to take you or CBtroll seriously.

You have to take a 8 hour class at a state licensed facility, pass two separate tests, get finger printed, fill out a questionnaire, a very thorough background check that includes your parents identity, two personal references, disclose your employer, and then have to ask your local police chief to approve your firearms license and give in writing why you feel the need to have a firearms license. It takes months in my state just to be able to buy your 1st firearm and not everyone gets approved.

Literally everyone I know and I know roughly 15 owners of firearms, not including all the members of the Rod and Gun clubs I run into, know how to safely use and dissemble their firearms. If you own a gun you have to know how to disassemble & reassemble it to clean it etc. You shoot, they get dirty. Last time I bought a firearm the store showed me how to dissemble it and every function of the firearm without me asking. They were amazingly, almost to the point of being annoyingly, thorough.

Even my wife knows the difference between a clip and a magazine and she only owns 1 pistol and is not very knowledgeable regarding firearms in general, other than her own personal firearm that is.

You have a source for that 'fact' or did you just make that up? Please cite source. Facts not opinions/feelings move discussions along.

1 person's opinion. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. Why do we care about what he thinks? What do his opinions and feelings add to this discussion? A person none of us have ever met.

Why do we care about what your 'made up' friend 'thinks and feels' again?

Do you care what uncle Jim Bob thinks? What about Pedo Peter's thoughts on the subject?

and your point is..?

The majority of this country wants abortions to be legal in every state.

The majority didn't vote for president Trump.

The majority does not dictate to the minority in this country which is EXACTLY how our founding fathers set our republic up. Tyranny from the masses.

By the end of 2023 there will be over 400 million firearms in circulation and 21 million AR-style firearms in the US, according to the NSSF. You could ban it today, will never pass SCOTUS, and there will still be 20 million of them.

Just deal with it.

Didn't you know??!? Their anecdotal statements are to be accepted, but the anecdotal references of others are to be jettisoned. This is the way!!!

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

Have you ever noticed the ones that call others uneducated tend to be the uneducated ones?

There seems to be a whole political Ecosystem where the head of their ecosystem accuses people and calls people names, but does the same things himself in actuality. These people take their lead from him, and live in a completely upside down world.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The "data" you requested regarding the majority in the US wanting more gun control, here you go:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/11036...-buffalo-biden

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ontrol-measure

As you said, we live in a democracy. I think you'll be the one that will have to "deal with it".

When did I ask for that? Please show me where I asked for that data. Quote me.


I asked for your source where you said:

Originally Posted by XutvJet

You know it's a large majority that don't know squat.

Can you please provide your source for this statement or is this just your feelings?

Originally Posted by XutvJet

I think you'll be the one that will have to "deal with it".

Deal with what? The amount of guns being sold in America increasing every year? Why would you think that would bother me? I am going to be adding to those numbers.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

I can't imagine what an angry and insecure person you are in real life, since all you really seem to care about is attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you and telling them they are stupid.

So on that note, I'm just going to bow out of this thread.

That's politics online! Personal attacks, cherry picking, one liners, deflect then rant and rave about other none sense.

You want something to actually debate, fine. We banned assault weapons between 1994-2004. Way before my time of knowing anything about politics, however from the summary of the studies citied on wikipedia (yes that's as much effort as I'm willing to put into this). The results are all over the board. However what is clear is no studies showed a significant impact on gun deaths. Some stated there was a minor drop in mass shootings with little/no impact on general gun deaths and others said no significant impact on mass shootings. Practically all said no significant impact to overall gun deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Also keep in mind this is 1994-2004 I don't believe mass shootings back then were all the rage they are now. Based on the mass shooting data on wikipedia it seems to have started really taking off around 2015 (social media anyone?). I also did not know Columbine happened in 1999 while the assault weapons ban was active.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Another interesting thing I found when looking through some of this data is how is a mass shooting defined? Because I saw some lists that showed 1 or 2 people shot inside their home as a mass shooting. Some listing no deaths. So I was not able to find any definitive numbers as to the total number of deaths by actual mass shootings. That being said, just based off the numbers of the big ones everyone can probably agree on it is still a tiny minuscule amount of deaths compared to everything else, however it's probably in the top 3 maybe top 2 things that's talked about on the media and in places like this.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

That's politics online! Personal attacks, cherry picking, one liners, deflect then rant and rave about other none sense.

You want something to actually debate, fine. We banned assault weapons between 1994-2004. Way before my time of knowing anything about politics, however from the summary of the studies citied on wikipedia (yes that's as much effort as I'm willing to put into this). The results are all over the board. However what is clear is no studies showed a significant impact on gun deaths. Some stated there was a minor drop in mass shootings with little/no impact on general gun deaths and others said no significant impact on mass shootings. Practically all said no significant impact to overall gun deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Also keep in mind this is 1994-2004 I don't believe mass shootings back then were all the rage they are now. Based on the mass shooting data on wikipedia it seems to have started really taking off around 2015 (social media anyone?). I also did not know Columbine happened in 1999 while the assault weapons ban was active.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Another interesting thing I found when looking through some of this data is how is a mass shooting defined? Because I saw some lists that showed 1 or 2 people shot inside their home as a mass shooting. Some listing no deaths. So I was not able to find any definitive numbers as to the total number of deaths by actual mass shootings. That being said, just based off the numbers of the big ones everyone can probably agree on it is still a tiny minuscule amount of deaths compared to everything else, however it's probably in the top 3 maybe top 2 things that's talked about on the media and in places like this.

They play with the numbers and change the definitions to pad the statistic(s). It's a political game they play.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

I also did not know Columbine happened in 1999 while the assault weapons ban was active.

The guns used in Columbine were a couple of shotguns, semi-auto 9mm Hi-Point 995 rifle, and a semi-auto Tec 9 pistol. The shotguns and Hi-Point 995 rifle were illegal "straw purchases". The Tec 9, an illegal private sale to a minor.

None of these guns have anywhere near the muzzle velocity of a AR-15 style rifle. If AR-15 style rifles had been used, far more than 13 students would have been killed.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Biggest group of pussies out there. Pathetic

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The guns used in Columbine were a couple of shotguns, semi-auto 9mm Hi-Point 995 rifle, and a semi-auto Tec 9 pistol. The shotguns and Hi-Point 995 rifle were illegal "straw purchases". The Tec 9, an illegal private sale to a minor.

None of these guns have anywhere near the muzzle velocity of a AR-15 style rifle. If AR-15 style rifles had been used, far more than 13 students would have been killed.

I'm sorry. I know, my post was like 2 whole paragraphs and I understand reading is hard. I feel you. You did good managing to read one sentence. Gold star!

Yeah, I'm done also. I might go debate abortion with my dogs.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

I'm sorry. I know, my post was like 2 whole paragraphs and I understand reading is hard. I feel you. You did good managing to read one sentence. Gold star!

Yeah, I'm done also. I might go debate abortion with my dogs.

For someone who has no opinion and no solutions for this, you sure take a derogatory stance towards people who do offer solutions.
If derogatory is too big a word, let me see if this helps:

derogatory adjective

de·​rog·​a·​to·​ry | \ di-ˈrä-gə-ˌtȯr-ē \
Definition of derogatory
1 : expressive of a low opinion : DISPARAGING
derogatory remarks
a derogatory term
2 : detracting from the character or standing of something —often used with to, towards, or of

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

For someone who has no opinion and no solutions for this, you sure take a derogatory stance towards people who do offer solutions.
If derogatory is too big a word, let me see if this helps:

derogatory adjective

de·​rog·​a·​to·​ry | \ di-ˈrä-gə-ˌtȯr-ē \
Definition of derogatory
1 : expressive of a low opinion : DISPARAGING
derogatory remarks
a derogatory term
2 : detracting from the character or standing of something —often used with to, towards, or of

So you only care about the definitions when it suits you. Got it.

I clearly stated that many of you are uneducated on the topic of firearms which has been proven time and time again in this thread. I am not insulting your intelligence or education. We all are all basically uneducated on many topics which we have not spent the time to learn about. I don't comment on things I know next to nothing about because it would clearly show my lack of understanding on the said topic. If gun control and firearms are such a big deal to you it would make sense you would educate yourself on the fundamentals before commenting. Otherwise people will call you out on your false statements, incorrect facts, and made up definitions. I understand there is likely a lot of passion and feelings behind your posts and others but you can't have a discussion based on feelings.

In the case of firearms even a very basic understanding of firearms and the laws surrounding them is enough to partake in the discussion. What is and is not an automatic? Clip vs. Magazine. Current laws. No one is asking for you to be an expert. Just know enough so you don't have to be corrected at every post. Again using made up phrases by politicians and the talking heads of news networks does no one any good and just makes having a frank discussion impossible.

Through discussion we can learn the other's ideas, viewpoints, and thoughts on the subject matter and might be able to change or at least educate the other party on why they feel so strongly about the subject. This can't be done with made up phrases, incorrect terminology, and false facts based on feelings.

As long as you remain uneducated on the subject there is no chance for a meaningful discussion.

It is interesting the number of posts about the definition of words that are posted only when trying to insult the other party, but happy to use words incorrectly to push the narrative you want. You can't have it both ways.

This is a car forum. We all use very well defined words to explicitly explain things. If someone used an incorrect term regarding tires, dyno hp measurements, body/chassis construction, street car vs race car, supercharging vs. Turbocharging, 0-60 times, 1/4 or 1/2 mile results, etc. Hey supercharging and turbocharging is the same right? colloquially? You would expect to be called out on it on. This is no different.

But instead of posting an intelligent well thought out response with facts in rebuttal to what someone writes, which you disagree with, you will post a troll comment or attack their character or whatever else you can to try and invalidate the facts they wrote. Never once thinking, "Maybe I should educate myself a bit more, maybe I should repond with facts which back up my argument." Very progressive.

I don't like it anymore than you when a concept/belief I have in my mind is invalidated by facts that prove what I believed to be true wrong, especially something I am passionate about. It is an adult who can say, I was wrong, I looked at the facts, and admit when they are wrong. The best part is you can do more research to find facts which invalidate or make them think differently about their "facts". This is how discussions work. Sharing or information and knowledge back and forth.

Facts not feelings and all of that jazz. I expect I will get a 1 sentence or 2 response to my post with zero facts. Why take the time to respond to a thought out response when you can troll and shitpost am I right? It is better than admitting you are speaking on a subject you know next to nothing about other than what has been spoon fed to you(which is incorrect). Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject makes people very hard to take anything you write seriously.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Torgus

So you only care about the definitions when it suits you. Got it.

I clearly stated that many of you are uneducated on the topic of firearms which has been proven time and time again in this thread. I am not insulting your intelligence or education. We all are all basically uneducated on many topics which we have not spent the time to learn about. I don't comment on things I know next to nothing about because it would clearly show my lack of understanding on the said topic. If gun control and firearms are such a big deal to you it would make sense you would educate yourself on the fundamentals before commenting. Otherwise people will call you out on your false statements, incorrect facts, and made up definitions. I understand there is likely a lot of passion and feelings behind your posts and others but you can't have a discussion based on feelings.

In the case of firearms even a very basic understanding of firearms and the laws surrounding them is enough to partake in the discussion. What is and is not an automatic? Clip vs. Magazine. Current laws. No one is asking for you to be an expert. Just know enough so you don't have to be corrected at every post. Again using made up phrases by politicians and the talking heads of news networks does no one any good and just makes having a frank discussion impossible.

Through discussion we can learn the other's ideas, viewpoints, and thoughts on the subject matter and might be able to change or at least educate the other party on why they feel so strongly about the subject. This can't be done with made up phrases, incorrect terminology, and false facts based on feelings.

As long as you remain uneducated on the subject there is no chance for a meaningful discussion.

It is interesting the number of posts about the definition of words that are posted only when trying to insult the other party, but happy to use words incorrectly to push the narrative you want. You can't have it both ways.

This is a car forum. We all use very well defined words to explicitly explain things. If someone used an incorrect term regarding tires, dyno hp measurements, body/chassis construction, street car vs race car, supercharging vs. Turbocharging, 0-60 times, 1/4 or 1/2 mile results, etc. Hey supercharging and turbocharging is the same right? colloquially? You would expect to be called out on it on. This is no different.

But instead of posting an intelligent well thought out response with facts in rebuttal to what someone writes, which you disagree with, you will post a troll comment or attack their character or whatever else you can to try and invalidate the facts they wrote. Never once thinking, "Maybe I should educate myself a bit more, maybe I should repond with facts which back up my argument." Very progressive.

I don't like it anymore than you when a concept/belief I have in my mind is invalidated by facts that prove what I believed to be true wrong, especially something I am passionate about. It is an adult who can say, I was wrong, I looked at the facts, and admit when they are wrong. The best part is you can do more research to find facts which invalidate or make them think differently about their "facts". This is how discussions work. Sharing or information and knowledge back and forth.

Facts not feelings and all of that jazz. I expect I will get a 1 sentence or 2 response to my post with zero facts. Why take the time to respond to a thought out response when you can troll and shitpost am I right? It is better than admitting you are speaking on a subject you know next to nothing about other than what has been spoon fed to you(which is incorrect). Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject makes people very hard to take anything you write seriously.

Wow. I hope you didn't get carpal tunnel syndrome from that response.

Can dreaming not fend for himself? He stated previously he has no solutions, but attacks those who offer solutions. I think that makes him a troll.

Meanwhile, this guy fired nine shots at the wrong car. I was surprised Fox did not comment on if he was a CCL guy, or the new wild West in Texas:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-mom...bbery-shootout

[Sedan_Clan]

I also posted this in the firearms thread….


So now that we've exhausted ourselves attempting to educate certain people, let's go ahead and cement the framework of the anti-gun/anti-2A movement.

In 1988, Josh Sugarmann, the founder of the leftist anti-gun group "Violence Policy Center," wrote a gun control strategy memo (…see quoted statement(s) excerpt below) that explicitly detailed the intentional misinformation approach to obtaining compliance and manipulating the public. This isn't some "alt-right" talking point made up by the "gun p0rn bros" as certain individuals love to repeat like they are reading directly off of Joe Biden's teleprompter. These are ideas, strategies and approaches coming directly from the left (…just like "Population Replacement Theory" or "The Great Reset").

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I also posted this in the firearms thread….


So now that we've exhausted ourselves attempting to educate certain people, let's go ahead and cement the framework of the anti-gun/anti-2A movement.

In 1988, Josh Sugarmann, the founder of the leftist anti-gun group "Violence Policy Center," wrote a gun control strategy memo (…see quoted statement(s) excerpt below) that explicitly detailed the intentional misinformation approach to obtaining compliance and manipulating the public. This isn't some "alt-right" talking point made up by the "gun p0rn bros" as certain individuals love to repeat like they are reading directly off of Joe Biden's teleprompter. These are ideas, strategies and approaches coming directly from the left (…just like "Population Replacement Theory" or "The Great Reset").

Wow! What a great argument! You've got us!

Except:

1. I don't recall anyone talking about banning guns in general. Just a certain type of gun, the one popular in the mass shootings. They don't seem to be good for anything other than killing people, or having fun on the gun range.

2. I never read about this leftist thing you're ranting about. I've just noticed over the years, the gunners in the mass shootings really like these certain guns. If you'll notice all my posts on Bimmerpost since I've been on here since 2016, the first time I've called for banning any kind of weapon at all was after the Uvalde shooting. Why? See my paragraph above. There is a pattern. These guns are good for one thing, and one thing only. Being used offensively against people. They're not good defensive weapons. They're too big. Apparently you need more education on these guns you champion so proudly.

3. Reading off Biden's Teleprompter? The one spouting content they've been indoctrinated into on the Internet is you and your gun porn buddies. I saw the video you posted in the Uvalde thread. Ranting about leftists. Do you think the shooters in Uvalde, or Highland Park, or Vegas, or Colombian, or central Texas, cared what side of the political spectrum you're or their victims are on?

[Sedan_Clan]

Let's look at more data……


….guns/rifles have been available since the dawn of time (…embellishing statement, but you get the point).

• …in the 1950's there was 1 mass shooting.
• …in the 1960's there were a total of 6 mass shootings.
• …in the 1970's there were a total of 13 mass shootings.
• …in the 1980's the number skyrocketed to 32 mass shootings.
• …and in the 1990's the number increased again to 42 mass shootings.

So what changed?!? Surely it wasn't the availability of handguns/rifles……the dreaded black & scary guns. It was the people.