GUN CONTROL NOW! "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - MLK Jr..
See all
Members (565)
Carla Npsgirl's profile photo
Macon Speed's profile photo
John Ellis's profile photo
Mr. Crowley's profile photo
Faisal Qureshi's profile photo
Jim Weiler's profile photo
James Paul Shelburn's profile photo
Kirk Rhoads's profile photo
Guy Montreal's profile photo
Jacob Sanders's profile photo
 Jose Custodio's profile photo
Bill Adams's profile photo
Matt inLancaster's profile photo
Adel Alsudany's profile photo
Michael de Beer's profile photo
Michael Fullerton's profile photo
Tom Hartung's profile photo
Progress America's profile photo
Spencer Dobson's profile photo
Nick DuBois's profile photo
Dave Derrick's profile photo
Liam Sauer-Wooden's profile photo
Bikudo's profile photo
Lars DeRuntz's profile photo

Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
FTA: U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a constitutional challenge to Connecticut and New York’s ban on semi-automatic assault rifles just days after the deadly attacks in Orlando with a similar style weapon.
More bad news for pro-gun advocates, but great news for the rest of us!
1
Johnny Chandler's profile photo
 
There's no such thing as an "assault rifle". Assault is an action. Rifles can't act on their own. 
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
Interesting poll here.
Do you think people should be allowed to carry guns in public?
3
Vėjas Plevėsavičius's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
3 comments
 
+Sifu Mode I didn't make this poll, I just thought it was interesting the numbers that it represented. 

+Vėjas Plevėsavičius I find it interesting that while many people including MSNBC state that the majority of people support and want further gun control.  But this poll states otherwise.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
"Research has found that if an abuser has access to a gun, the victim is eight times more likely to be killed."
Police say a man fired 33 rounds into his neighbor's house after she refused his sexual advances.
3
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoMichael Brown's profile photo
5 comments
 
"It offers a perfect example of what happens when male entitlement and guns collide."  

This seems very strange, mainly because the incidents that are described next by the article have nothing to do with male entitlement, rather a correlation of situations where those responsible for safety did not act accordingly. 

In no way am I excusing these acts of violence, but in my opinion we are all responsible for our own safety, and should react accordingly when there is a clear indication of danger. 

"A security guard testified at a preliminary hearing that he said he was going to “merk” her"  So since its at a bar, she was not able to protect herself, and the people that are suppose to  "security guards"  heard the threat and did nothing. 

"A man shot a 3-year-old girl multiple times after her mother declined his come-ons."  If you have declined someone's sexual advances multiple times, you shouldn't allow your child with them alone.  Since the adult was not shot and the child was, then why isn't the mother using common sense and not letting her child near him alone.

"A teen stole his father’s gun, kidnapped his ex-girlfriend and then shot her"  The father should have locked up his guns, that's simple.  I was given a gun at the age of eight, I was only allowed to handle that firearm after I turned 17, even then if it was in the safe, I had to ask permission to get it. 

And now for my favorite part the math....


According to the article In 2013, more than 1,600 U.S. women were murdered by men.  According to the FBI number of deaths: 11,208.  I wouldn't say that 14% is a lot, and it hardly proves "male entitlement" when related to firearms. 
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
I ask those that support further gun control the same question.
4
Add a comment...

Bobby Ingram

Discussion  - 
 
Howdy .. I came here from reading a conversation between Sayno and Michael Brown and a third commenter.
This 'debate' went on for hours and I want to offer some advice (IM 70years old, a combat veteran therefore I am allowed to give advice ...cough)
Sayno and Michael, You two brought up MANY good points while the other commentor relied mostly on his/ her feelings and calling others bad names.
My advice for next time is 'Realize sooner that other person is not there to learn or teach and just stop typing to them, don't say good bye or anything, just leave your best argument hanging and stop typing'
Really saves on the frazzeled nerves.
Respectfully
CW2 Ingram (retired)
101st AHB VN 68-69
4
SayNoTo Democide (The Empire Unmasked)'s profile photo
 
+Bobby Ingram I reccomend pointing out the enemy's hypocrisy (they accuse us of being bloodthirsty, but they themself support Hillary Clinton, who is STRONGLY pro-war, supported a coup in Honduras in which extremists murdered homosexuals, and while she doesn't want us to be armed, she wants to allow the sale of military equipment of governments of Israel, Saudi Arabia and supports arming ISIS).

Why not +mention this person and tell them the following; "Not only is Hillary the most warmongering candidate, but also, she wants to allow the sale of weapons and other military equipment with governments that have horrible humans rights records such as those of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and wants to support arming ISIS. Besides, there are places like the Czech republic that allows civilians to get military-style semi-automatic rifles without too many restrictions and Canada and New Zealand also have relatively loose firearm laws, but they're not too violent".

After you're done with that, hit them with a reshare of my ultimate argument, which can be found in my "Ultimate arguments" collection. I bet that they can't bust that.
Add a comment...
 
Ignoring that this is a prefatory clause, meaning it has no bearing on the actual statement but to lend an example for why, we'll go with this wonderful vein of gun grabber illogic. Well regulated means trained, so being that I, and several million gun owners, are trained and competent in weapons manipulation and usage (we'll even say trained beyond basic safety practices, meaning implementation, tactics, and use of force training), it would stand that none of the restriction put on ownership of arms (any arms, from sharp sticks to Titan missiles) apply to me and the myriad others who are well regulated. I could go with this line of thought. I always wanted my own LAW (that's an m72 light anti-tank weapon for the uninformed). Absolutely no use for it, but one never knows when they'd need a small, portable, flying explosive.
4
1
Sifu Mode's profile photodog guy's profile photo
3 comments
dog guy
 
the part where it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINDGED 
Add a comment...
 
Here's another one chief yellow streak scrubbed.

If you replaced the nra emblazon with loud-ass gun control advocates, it'd be right on the mark. People don't rush out and buy guns after each high profile shooting because of the nra. They do so out of fear from the rhetoric gun grabbers splash all over about taking certain guns away. It's ironic, really. Gun grabbers use impressively tragic deaths to try to push their agenda (which measures wouldn't stop any of the tragedies they use to propel their agenda, another irony), and that sets off a round of panic buying for the very thing they're railing against, making them some of the best gun salesman in the country.
 
Death for gun sales
4
1
Adam Reznik's profile photoAnthony Dees's profile photo
3 comments
 
Go back and look at the history of activity on "Occupy The NRA", and you will see that the sight almost goes inactive between shooting tragedies. This proves that the outcry for gun control is based solely on emotion and reaction. Not common sense and realistic expectations of gun laws.

And yes! joshua Deshautelles is right. It is the threats coming from the gun control crowd that spurs sales. Just look at when the feds threatened to ban the M855 green tip round. There was an instant demand, and sales went through the roof! The NRA worked to stop the ban, they did not tell everyone to buy all the green tips that they could, but that was the reaction of gun owners.
Add a comment...
 
Chief yellow streak hasn't acknowledged me on his deleting opposing views on his posts, in a discussion forum. So, in order to preserve the polite discourse some of us appreciate, I'm pulling his posts to where civil discussion can actually happen.

This article leads off with the fallacious assumptions that: guns are the cause of violence in society, making the options to gun violence either supporting gun control in all its forms, or supporting violence. Considering that the vast majority of guns and their owners aren't involved in any violence at all (the ratio of violent incidents to total guns and owners is around 1:20, or 5%), this is obviously a gross misrepresentation of both gun violence, it's perpetrators, and the nature of violence itself.

At least the article gets something right. The system in place right now is faulty. The background check system as it is now is understaffed, unreliable updated, and the criteria is ill efficient at prohibiting actually violent offenders (the example is domestic abusers, so we'll stick with that). Many violent offenders are overlooked because their offenses are misdemeanors. Domestic violence offenses are mostly misdemeanors, and often dropped by their significant others (meaning no conviction). While there's nothing we can do about non-convictions (the risk of circumventing due process means anyone could be prohibited at anyone's whim, something that can be greatly abused), we could redraw the line at violent convictions instead of felonies (there are a great many felonies that are of non-violent crimes, or even victimless crimes). This would better cover those who violently deny other's autonomy.
 
If constant gun massacres are an inevitable result of American liberty—if we cannot be truly free without letting every madman, abuser, and hothead with a grudge get guns, if we cannot send our children to school without fearing they may be slaughtered in a hail of bullets—we need to reconsider what liberty truly means.
The only reason you have not been shot is because nobody has yet decided to shoot you. Our patchwork of mostly loose state gun laws, combined with weak ...
5
Bobby Ingram's profile photojoshua Deshautelles's profile photo
4 comments
 
Doesn't normally bother me, but this guy went through and deleted every polite, but differing from his opinion, comment I had made, and apparently other folks as well. This wouldn't have been much either, but the whole point of the forum is discussion. 
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
1
Adam Reznik's profile photo
 
The only sensible ideas were blocked by democrats.
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
 
By General Stanley A. McChrystal
Some of our politicians and the people who back them seem to promote a culture of gun ownership that does not conform with what I learned in the military.
1
Vėjas Plevėsavičius's profile photo
 
Remember that it was generals and presidents shooting Americans by hundreds of thousands during the Lincoln's invasion into South. 
Add a comment...

About this community

GUN CONTROL NOW! "A time comes when silence...is betrayal." -MLK Jr.

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
"No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms. That defies common sense. It also defies the law."
~~Chris Cox, executive director of NRA's lobbying arm

"I want to clarify my comment: if you're going to carry, don't drink. OK to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol."
~~Wayne LaPierre, NRA CEO, responding to Trump's comments that Orlando nightclubbers should have been armed, June 19, 2016
During television appearances on Sunday to push back against calls for gun control legislation in the wake of the deadly Orlando shooting, two officials for the National Rifle Association admitted that people at bars should not be carrying guns. During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's lobbying arm, was asked about Trump's recent suggestion that the shooting at the Orlando night club could have end...
1
Lily Cosgrove's profile photo
 
Drumpf disagrees. He thinks drunk shooters are needed to protect the citizenry.
Add a comment...

dog guy

Discussion  - 
1
Hey Chief's profile photodog guy's profile photo
2 comments
dog guy
 
to kill more minorities without much opposition?
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
(3 min.)
She's been frustrated by lawmakers not making any changes.
2
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
 
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet.
3
Add a comment...
 
Gene stoner developed the AR-10 family of rifles (chambered in .308) in the mid 1950s, which armalite had him redevelop to use the .222 cartridge (not the final military 5.56, or .223). This rifle was such a flop within military circles that armalite sold the rights off to colt, who immediately marketed it as a sporting rifle. Stoner made many millions from the sale of his rifle over the next four decades (he died in the mid '90s), where at no point he disparaged the sale of his rifle to the general public, but rather expressed his contentment with developing a sporting rifle near anyone could handle and enjoy (except for one Mr. Kuntzman, who apparently was temporarily traumatized to the same level as people in close combat, the poor pansy). But here we are twenty years after Mr. Stoner died with his family shamelessly putting words in his mouth. Smells like bullshit is a mild way of describing this fecund interview.
 
he statements from the family leave little doubt about Eugene Stoner’s intention for the weapon:

“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday…”After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle,” his family said, explaining that Stoner was “focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military.”
Even more damning to the argument that it’s needed for self-defense, Stoner himself never even owned one:

The ex-Marine and “avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter” never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
AR-15 style weapons have been used in some of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, such as Orlando, Newtown and San Bernardino, and was used in yet another mass shooting the day after the Orlando massacre.

While gun advocates are pushing to make even more destructive weapons available to the public, some conservatives are cooling to 2nd Amendment hardliners in the face of the recent hate crime in Orlando. And the family of Eugene Stoner is clearly not on board with the idea such destructive weapons have any business in a civilized society. They leave the public with a very important question in the NBC interview:
Eugene Stoner invented the AR-15. His family now speaks out and says what no 2nd Amendment hardliner wants to hear.
4
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoAdam Reznik's profile photo
11 comments
 
+joshua Deshautelles Josh, +Susan Hughes-Michaels Susie does not have a point. She has been beaten in debate thoroughly and repeatedly.

She is nothing but a troll. Please do not feed the trolls.
Add a comment...
 
Like I said before, what kind of absolute wanking moron actually believes there are people like this?
7
1
Nate Caldwell's profile photoSayNoTo Democide (The Empire Unmasked)'s profile photo
12 comments
 
+Nate Caldwell I know. It is just that some people aren't ready for that kind of responsibility, and unfortunately, drags down others.
Add a comment...
 
The only way this could be considered a victory (the Supreme Court deciding not to hear a case, not hearing and upholding the original ruling) is if the person crying victory knows the original ruling is unconstitutional. This says a lot about the noise maker, who obviously doesn't care about others' rights (even if they're the same rights they don't want people to violate where it concerns them). A little hypocritical, don't you think?
 
Victory victory!!! Won't stay around to watch gunners cry. ROTFL
Bans in Connecticut and New York were challenged by gun rights advocates
3
joshua Deshautelles's profile photoSusan Hughes-Michaels's profile photo
4 comments
 
+joshua Deshautelles Poor weapon of war supporter who whined incessantly that HeyChief deleted his comments and taunted him for it ... yet you have now deleted my comments over several posts.

Ah yes, when gun lovers are challenged, they fold faster than you can say "common sense gun control is coming!" You do realize that by deleting my comments after you repeatedly called Hey Chief "yellow" for doing the same thing means you're a massive hypocrite correct?

I knew you would fold in a nanosecond when my sources debunked you. And you don't want them on your posts because they expose you so you delete them. This is what we call "willful ignorance". Bye now !
Add a comment...

Paul Frank

Discussion  - 
2
1
Adam Reznik's profile photo
7 comments
 
+Paul Frank  Please explain your unhappiness with your community's firearm policies. Removing any emotion you may have regarding recent events such as Orlando or San Bernadino, explain how changing policy might have any change on criminal behavior. Explain how you feel the infringement of natural born rights in some communities, but not others, is acceptable.
Add a comment...

Michael Brown

Discussion  - 
 
Seem that because +Hey Chief  thinks that turning off comments and deleting comments that disagree with him is acceptable, we will have to have double posts in here again.  Whats that saying about those ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it, another Randy here I guess.
2
Johnny Chandler's profile photoSayNoTo Democide (The Empire Unmasked)'s profile photo
34 comments
 
+Johnny Chandler Everybody says that, and it's not enough. I can ask other guys, though. It's not like you're under obligation to share my content or it's likely that we'll convince the individual.
Add a comment...