It's over: Even the 'fact-checkers' won't defend Hiden anymore

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You just said you want to eliminate gun crime, not crime.

If you want to eliminate crime, then you address the criminal. The gun is meaningless.

BTW the great irony here is, focusing on the criminal and eliminating crime is how you actually eliminate the guns.

Whether you can admit it or not, many gun owners own a gun for self protection.

Against criminals committing crime.

Eliminate crime, and you eliminate the need for these people to own a gun.

But getting in their face and ranting 'Hey asshole gun nut, how in the hell do you NEED all those guns you have???' just encourages them to get MOAR GUNS.

I'm stunned that people like you can't see that.

If you truly want to eliminate guns, you should NEVER discuss gun crime.

You should ALWAYS focus on eliminating crime. Put the emotions aside and focus on the bigger picture.

 

[BamaFan1137]

and it's easy to get people to question why anyone would need an assault-style weapon.

It's easy to get people to question it if they don't truly understand guns, the debate or our history.

The lefts position on "assault rifles" benefits greatly from ignorance. The vast majority of people who support the lefts position on this subject have very little knowledge on the guns themselves.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Would the industry simply dissolve, or would those in the construction industry adapt and start using other tools to replace the hammer?

My nail sinker would finally take off and I'd make a mint.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

So, if Beto won and the constitution was changed to outlaw all firearms, you'd turn yours in?

No...I would not. That is just me. If ANYTHING else was changed, I would obey the law. I would never allow for ANYONE to take my ability to protect my family away.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

So, if Beto won and the constitution was changed to outlaw all firearms, you'd turn yours in?

Just for the record...Beto could not win HOA president.

 

[GwinnettDawg]

That's like saying alcohol isn't a problem because a lot of people use it responsibly without any issues.

100% of gun crime involves guns.

By criminals

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Eliminating the preferred tool of criminals does nothing address eliminating crime?

Where are y'all's laughing emojis?

No it does not whatsoever. Not ONE bit. Criminal will be criminals. NOT ONE would turn their gun in. And the people that did, will be their prey. Secondly, in my lifetime..there is ZERO % chance of gun confiscation. Let me alert you again ZERO % chance. If ANYONE things that taking guns from law abiding people will reduce crime...they are dumber than FJB and his supporters.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

No it does not whatsoever. Not ONE bit. Criminal will be criminals. NOT ONE would turn their gun in. And the people that did, will be their prey. Secondly, in my lifetime..there is ZERO % chance of gun confiscation. Let me alert you again ZERO % chance. If ANYONE things that taking guns from law abiding people will reduce crime...they are dumber than FJB and his supporters.

No rational person believes taking guns impacts crime.

Do we really think criminals are sitting around "Hey bro, I'm bored, lets go commit a crime!' 'Dude did you forget? They took our guns last week!'

'Damn that's right! Well, I guess we can't commit a crime now. Want to go to church?'

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Rifles get extra attention because of their involvement in 'mass' events and it's easy to get people to question why anyone would need an assault-style weapon. Pistols clearly cause more problems.

I have no interest in disarming law abiding citizens.

I see a nation flooded with firearms with an epidemic of gun crime. That's unlike any other civilized country.

Gun crime requires criminals AND guns. Both parts should be addressed.

I ELCOME people like you to MOVE to one of those Countries of choice! THERE..problem solved! And let me explain the "need of an AR15" First....the CONSTITUTION does not address "need" It says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" So whether or not some little snowflake wonders what I need or do not need...F them. SECONDLY....the reason I DO have an AR15 for protection is I do not want to break my rule. My rule is..I want to have AT LEAST as good of a gun to fight back with as the person trying to do me harm. Have you ever heard of.."do not bring a knife to a gun fight? Well my opinion is...do not bring a pistol to an AR15 fight. THIRDLY....IF we ever have to defend this Country....I want the BEST weapon I can get...that is why my next purchase WILL BE an AR10. Lastly...I have had MANY, MANY guns for over 50 years...and ZERO crimes. So no..some may give their guns up...there is ZERO chance that I would.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

It's easy to get people to question it if they don't truly understand guns, the debate or our history.

The lefts position on "assault rifles" benefits greatly from ignorance. The vast majority of people who support the lefts position on this subject have very little knowledge on the guns themselves.

First of all..and AR15 is NOT an assault rifle. I refuse to let some little sissy lefty RENAME that gun because the looks of it scares them. F them. I have mostly made it a rule NEVER to discuss firearms with snowflakes. They know NOTHING about them. NOTHING. ( I see you have "assault rifles" in quotes, I imagine that is why)

 

[BamaFan1137]

First of all..and AR15 is NOT an assault rifle. I refuse to let some little sissy lefty RENAME that gun because the looks of it scares them. F them. I have mostly made it a rule NEVER to discuss firearms with snowflakes. They know NOTHING about them. NOTHING. ( I see you have "assault rifles" in quotes, I imagine that is why)

Getting into @EvilWayz pantry here a little bit but if these uneducated people ever took a deep dive into the ATF's wording on what defines one gun from another, they too would scratch their head.

 

[BCSpell]

Rifles get extra attention because of their involvement in 'mass' events and it's easy to get people to question why anyone would need an assault-style weapon. Pistols clearly cause more problems.

I have no interest in disarming law abiding citizens.

I see a nation flooded with firearms with an epidemic of gun crime. That's unlike any other civilized country.

Gun crime requires criminals AND guns. Both parts should be addressed.

Your missing the point. 1. The DEMS DO want to take the guns from law abiding citizens. 2. Getting rid of all guns means only the criminals will have guns. They don't follow the law and purchase guns legally.

 

[GatorTheo]

It's easy to get people to question it if they don't truly understand guns, the debate or our history.

The lefts position on "assault rifles" benefits greatly from ignorance. The vast majority of people who support the lefts position on this subject have very little knowledge on the guns themselves.

That's common gun nut logic to me.

You're trying to dismiss your opponent's opinion for a bogus reason. Guns aren't complicated. They shoot. Period. You don't need to understand the models or inner workings to have a perfectly valid opinion.

You would never say, in order to have an opinion on speed limits, you need to understand how to rebuild a transmission.

I do agree that everything people call an 'assault rifle' isn't technically an assault rifle but that doesn't matter in the general gun control conversation. Assault-style weapons are commonly used in the mass shootings. That's what people are so concerned with.

 

[GatorTheo]

Your missing the point. 1. The DEMS DO want to take the guns from law abiding citizens. 2. Getting rid of all guns means only the criminals will have guns. They don't follow the law and purchase guns legally.

I don't follow politics across the nation. There are dems who say they want to totally disarm the American public?

 

[GatorTheo]

By criminals with guns

fify

 

[BamaFan1137]

That's common gun nut logic to me.

You're trying to dismiss your opponent's opinion for a bogus reason. Guns aren't complicated. They shoot. Period. You don't need to understand the models or inner workings to have a perfectly valid opinion.

You would never say, in order to have an opinion on speed limits, you need to understand how to rebuild a transmission.

I do agree that everything people call an 'assault rifle' isn't technically an assault rifle but that doesn't matter in the general gun control conversation. Assault-style weapons are commonly used in the mass shootings. That's what people are so concerned with.

Ignorance is a bogus reason, eh?

Some people think they are "machine guns" and don't understand the difference between semiautomatic and fully automatic.

The difference makes a difference man. What I'm hearing from you is that all guns need to be banned.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I do agree that everything people call an 'assault rifle' isn't technically an assault rifle but that doesn't matter in the general gun control conversation. Assault-style weapons are commonly used in the mass shootings. That's what people are so concerned with.

And these people tend to think if you remove the 'assault style weapons' that you eliminate the mass shootings.

Again, is the goal to eliminate gun crime, or eliminate crime?

Stop thinking emotionally. Start thinking logically.

The emotional person looks at school shootings and thinks eliminate the guns, that ends school shootings.

The rational person looks at school shootings, see they typically happen in GUN FREE ZONES, and understand that is actually ATTRACTING shooters. So they want to REMOVE the gun free zone to DETER shootings.

The emotional thinker faints at the thought. 'OMG then EVERYONE will be shooting! The teachers, even the students! OMG IT WILL BE A BLOODBATH!!!!"

SMDH The problem with emotional thinkers is politicians are quite adept at playing on their emotions in order to manipulate them into acting irrationally.

 

[nail1988]

Biden busted with another lie

WH: Tweet of Biden Taking Credit for Social Security Increase Was Taken Down, Because It ‘Was Not Complete’ ( its because the inflation is as high as it’s been it 4 decades )​

CNSNews.com) - The White House took down a tweet it posted on Tuesday giving President Biden credit for “the biggest increase” in Social Security for senior citizens in 10 years, saying that it was because the tweet was not complete.”

"Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden's leadership," the White House tweeted Tuesday.

WH: Tweet of Biden Taking Credit for Social Security Increase Was Taken Down, Because It ‘Was Not Complete’

The White House took down a tweet it posted on Tuesday giving President Biden credit for “the biggest increase” in Social Security for senior citizens in 10 years, saying that it was because the tweet was not complete.”

cnsnews.com

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Biden busted with another lie

WH: Tweet of Biden Taking Credit for Social Security Increase Was Taken Down, Because It ‘Was Not Complete’ ( its because the inflation is as high as it’s been it 4 decades )​

CNSNews.com) - The White House took down a tweet it posted on Tuesday giving President Biden credit for “the biggest increase” in Social Security for senior citizens in 10 years, saying that it was because the tweet was not complete.”

"Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden's leadership," the White House tweeted Tuesday.

WH: Tweet of Biden Taking Credit for Social Security Increase Was Taken Down, Because It ‘Was Not Complete’

The White House took down a tweet it posted on Tuesday giving President Biden credit for “the biggest increase” in Social Security for senior citizens in 10 years, saying that it was because the tweet was not complete.”

cnsnews.com

If the midterms end up being a Red Wave, watch for dems to claim Twitter 'fact checking' them was election interference and stole the election.

The second the dems don't believe they can use Twitter to get out their propaganda effectively, they will pull Section 230 and burn it to the ground.

 

[GatorTheo]

And these people tend to think if you remove the 'assault style weapons' that you eliminate the mass shootings.

Again, is the goal to eliminate gun crime, or eliminate crime?

Stop thinking emotionally. Start thinking logically.

The emotional person looks at school shootings and thinks eliminate the guns, that ends school shootings.

The rational person looks at school shootings, see they typically happen in GUN FREE ZONES, and understand that is actually ATTRACTING shooters. So they want to REMOVE the gun free zone to DETER shootings.

The emotional thinker faints at the thought. 'OMG then EVERYONE will be shooting! The teachers, even the students! OMG IT WILL BE A BLOODBATH!!!!"

SMDH The problem with emotional thinkers is politicians are quite adept at playing on their emotions in order to manipulate them into acting irrationally.

That is a very common gun nut strawman.

Nobody thinks gun control will end shootings.

Nobody.

 

[GatorTheo]

Ignorance is a bogus reason, eh?

Some people think they are "machine guns" and don't understand the difference between semiautomatic and fully automatic.

The difference makes a difference man. What I'm hearing from you is that all guns need to be banned.

Your hearing is really bad.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

That is a very common gun nut strawman.

Nobody thinks gun control will end shootings.

Nobody.

Then why are so many schools also gun free zones?

Have you done any research into what percentage of the school shootings happen in 'gun free' zones vs those where guns are present and known to any potential shooters to be present?

Remember, logical thinking vs emotional.

And again, never owned a gun in my life. Not fanatical about guns, am fanatical about common sense.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Your hearing is really bad.

Maybe my hearing sucks. Maybe you suck at articulation. But if you're telling me that ignorance on a guns capability doesn't matter, how does that not equal all guns need to go?

Guns aren't complicated. They shoot.

This line sort of made it clearer for me. No, I think my hearing is just fine.

 

[fatman76]

They do, but they have to “chip away” at it. That’s how it is with all of our liberties sir. They can’t do it all at once or folks would revolt. But a slow drip, will eventually get you there. Just like the old bull young bull sir.

Like I said, if you simply search the web, you will find what even lib media outlets will admit the longterm goal is. If you don’t want to believe what even dems are willing to admit, then I can’t help you.

View embedded media

Gun registry anyone?

Visa, Mastercard, American Express will begin tracking gun store purchases

Credit card companies will adopt a merchant category code for gun stores, enabling the easier tracking of gun purchases.

www.axios.com

 

[GatorTheo]

Then why are so many schools also gun free zones?

Have you done any research into what percentage of the school shootings happen in 'gun free' zones vs those where guns are present and known to any potential shooters to be present?

Remember, logical thinking vs emotional.

And again, never owned a gun in my life. Not fanatical about guns, am fanatical about common sense.

'Gun free' zones are just people trying to do something within their power to create a safer environment. It's mostly a feel safer thing.

You can't have an effective 'gun free' zone anymore than you could have an effective 'disease free' zone in a hospital.

It might work in a country that's not flooded with guns.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

'Gun free' zones are just people trying to do something within their power to create a safer environment. It's mostly a feel safer thing.

You can't have an effective 'gun free' zone anymore than you could have an effective 'disease free' zone in a hospital.

It might work in a country that's not flooded with guns.

Do you think it's an effective strategy to advertise to potential shooters that guns are banned at the school?

 

[GatorTheo]

...But if you're telling me that ignorance on a guns capability doesn't matter....

It matters if you're actually trying to write laws to address specific guns or capabilities. <----- we don't do this here

It doesn't matter in a more general conversation about the problems caused by guns. <----- we do this here

What gun nuts want to do is totally dismiss pro-gun control opinions because many of the people aren't knowledgeable about the details of the individual firearms.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

It matters if you're actually trying to write laws to address specific guns or capabilities. <----- we don't do this here

Actually this isn't true. Weren't 'bump stocks' banned after a mass shooting a few years ago?

 

[GatorTheo]

Do you think it's an effective strategy to advertise to potential shooters that guns are banned at the school?

Not at all. Unfortunately, if someone has half a brain and wants to kill a bunch of people, they're going to be able to do it.

Massive numbers of guns in circulation makes their job much easier.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

What gun nuts want to do is totally dismiss pro-gun control opinions because many of the people aren't knowledgeable about the details of the individual firearms.

I find this fascinating. You have a gun, and you have a person holding the gun. The person holding the gun commits a gun crime....and you want to charge the gun?

And the people that point out that the criminal is at fault......are the nutty ones??

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Not at all. Unfortunately, if someone has half a brain and wants to kill a bunch of people, they're going to be able to do it.

Massive numbers of guns in circulation makes their job much easier.

That's treating a symptom, not the problem. Put emotions aside and let's focus on the problem.

 

[jfegaly]

'Gun free' zones are just people trying to do something within their power to create a safer environment. It's mostly a feel safer thing.

You can't have an effective 'gun free' zone anymore than you could have an effective 'disease free' zone in a hospital.

It might work in a country that's not flooded with guns.

Tell me you put up a bunch of yard signs for Mitt Romney without telling me you put up yard signs for Mitt Romney.

 

[GatorTheo]

I find this fascinating. You have a gun, and you have a person holding the gun. The person holding the gun commits a gun crime....and you want to charge the gun?

And the people that point out that the criminal is at fault......are the nutty ones??

Have you ever heard anyone say they want to charge a gun with a crime?

You may get too much info from pro-gun sources.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Have you ever heard anyone say they want to charge a gun with a crime?

You may get too much info from pro-gun sources.

Maybe I do? Which ones are the pro-gun sources?

I've heard you say you want to eliminate gun crime.

I want to eliminate crime. And again the irony is, if we eliminate crime, we also eliminate gun crime AND greatly reduce the number of guns in circulation.

You SHOULD be on board with this. But emotions make people act irrationally.

 

[GatorTheo]

Tell me you put up a bunch of yard signs for Mitt Romney without telling me you put up yard signs for Mitt Romney.

I don't do yard signs but I voted for Romney. The one I didn't vote for was McCain (I didn't vote at all).

I know you right wing extremists harp on RINOs but they're way better than democrats.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Notice we have spent 4 pages now discussing how guns are bad and why they need to go away to reduce gun crimes.

We've spent 0 seconds discussing the issues they lead to people committing crime, and how we address those in order to reduce crime.

People tell you what they want by what is important to them. Where their priorities are.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I know you right wing extremists harp on RINOs but they're way better than democrats.

They're actually the same. And I won't bang on you too much for saying this, cause up till 2016, I agreed with you.

 

[GatorTheo]

Maybe I do? Which ones are the pro-gun sources?

I've heard you say you want to eliminate gun crime.

I want to eliminate crime. And again the irony is, if we eliminate crime, we also eliminate gun crime AND greatly reduce the number of guns in circulation.

You SHOULD be on board with this. But emotions make people act irrationally.

I said I wanted to eliminate gun crime? I don't believe that's correct. You guys seem to misquote your opponents a LOT.

It's not realistically possible to eliminate gun crime. I want to reduce it.

As long as there are guns and criminals, there will be gun crime.

 

[GatorTheo]

They're actually the same. And I won't bang on you too much for saying this, cause up till 2016, I agreed with you.

I've mentioned this before. To right wing extremists, there are only two kinds of people....them and liberals.

I'm sure left wing extremists are just as bad. They probably think Pedo is a conservative.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I've mentioned this before. To right wing extremists, there are only two kinds of people....them and liberals.

And anyone that calls you a RINO is a right-wing extremists. The wheels on the bus go round and round.