POTUS plea to respectable gun owners to support "common sense" gun laws

[IndyDave1776]

"There are ways to protect our children & protect our rights," says POTUS calling for new gun controls. "Don't pretend that there aren't."

My response:

There are ways to protect our republic, including giving a traitor a traitor's reward.

 

[jamil]

No purple.

I contend that these shooters are cowards, nothing more than walking suicides, waiting for the opportunity to go out "in a blaze of glory" in their feeble minds. Take away the sheep for them to shoot and the "active shooter" will go away, they'll go back to suicide before they risk the embarrassment of being bested by their marks.
There might be an uptick in "death by cop" incidents, but heck, the cops getting a little more target practice never hurts.

I challenge you to make it your life's work to get the gun free zones eliminated, then I'll wait for you to prove me wrong, (but you won't.)




Mr. Blackhawk2001, I'm sorry you don't agree with my opinion. I will say though that I am offended by your inference that my thinking has a similarity to that of anti-gunners. That was incorrect and unnecessary.

I'm going to agree with BH on one point. Eliminating GFZ won't eliminate mass shootings. It would very likely lead to a drastic reduction. But not eliminate. To think it would fails to imagine the lengths to which evil people will go to do evil things.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue eliminating legally binding GFZ. We should. Publicly owned properties should not prohibit citizens carrying firearms. Private property is different though. Businesses should have as much right to refuse service to someone carrying a firearm as they have to refuse to bake a cake for gays. Certainly a no-firearms policy should not have the weight of law. And, I think it's fair to make business owners who prohibit firearms acknowledge their responsible for the safety of their patrons. So, if they have a no-firearms sign, on the sign it should say, "we are responsible for your safety".

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm going to agree with BH on one point. Eliminating GFZ won't eliminate mass shootings. It would very likely lead to a drastic reduction. But not eliminate. To think it would fails to imagine the lengths to which evil people will go to do evil things.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue eliminating legally binding GFZ. We should. Publicly owned properties should not prohibit citizens carrying firearms. Private property is different though. Businesses should have as much right to refuse service to someone carrying a firearm as they have to refuse to bake a cake for gays. Certainly a no-firearms policy should not have the weight of law. And, I think it's fair to make business owners who prohibit firearms acknowledge their responsible for the safety of their patrons. So, if they have a no-firearms sign, on the sign it should say, "we are responsible for your safety".

My point exactly. Thank you for clarifying what apparently I wasn't making clear.

 

[bwframe]

Well I'm sorry you're offended (NOT!). As I said in my response to your post, ANYONE who thinks that doing away with "Gun Free Zones" will eliminate crazies and other murderers is engaging in the same sort of wishful thinking as the anti-gunners.

Nice.

The crazies and murderers will still be here, they just won't be shooting up schools. They will find other ways to end their troubled lives. Especially after one or two shaming headlines read;
"Deranged Would Be Active Shooter Killed By Parent"
"School Shooting Stopped Before it Began, Troubled Man Deceased"



Maybe if you weren't so fixated on the thinking of anti-gunners, you might understand? Hmmm...

 

[MisterChester]

Many of these crazy mass-killers research what would be the best place to kill the most people. The Colorado movie shooter, the Louisiana move theater shooter, researched movie theaters that had no-guns signs. Guess which ones they picked!

 

[CPT Nervous]

Many of these crazy mass-killers research what would be the best place to kill the most people. The Colorado movie shooter, the Louisiana move theater shooter, researched movie theaters that had no-guns signs. Guess which ones they picked!

You're not implying....


*gasp!*

 

[2A_Tom]

"There are ways to protect our children & protect our rights," says POTUS calling for new gun controls. "Don't pretend that there aren't."

OK, Mr President, let us pretend for that there are. what are they?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Clinton: Gun Buyback 'Worth Considering' for U.S.

 

[Bartman]

This entire thread is moot point. According the president, Clinton, the Brady Campaign, et al there are no respectable gun owners in America. We're all bitter clingers and terrorists. They spew their inflammatory rhetoric with one face and talk about working together for "common sense" solutions with the other.

No quarter asked, none given.

 

[jamil]

This entire thread is moot point. According the president, Clinton, the Brady Campaign, et al there are no respectable gun owners in America. We're all bitter clingers and terrorists. They spew their inflammatory rhetoric with one face and talk about working together for "common sense" solutions with the other.

No quarter asked, none given.

I know, I know. Saul Alinsky and all. But the bad thing about using those tactics, you **** off a whole lot of people.

 

[terrehautian]

Clinton: Gun Buyback 'Worth Considering' for U.S.

"We know your gun is worth 300 dollars, but since it is a handgun, here is a $25 gift card to Walmart. Thanks for doing your part for keeping America Safe".

Purple above.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Clinton suggests she'd consider mandatory gun buy-backs, sparking fears of ?confiscation? | Fox News

(Manditory buyback = Confiscation)

 

[Twangbanger]

Now that the thread is a week old, I think it's time to observe some things.

The Original Poster joined in Sep. 2015, engaged in a little flurry of posting, established his credentials (I served my country, I'm a certified survivalist, etc.), made his defense of "commonsense gun regulations"...then when called on it, disappeared and hasn't posted since.

What do you folks make of this?

 

[jamil]

Now that the thread is a week old, I think it's time to observe some things.

The Original Poster joined in Sep. 2015, engaged in a little flurry of posting, established his credentials (I served my country, I'm a certified survivalist, etc.), made his defense of "commonsense gun regulations"...then when called on it, disappeared and hasn't posted since.

What do you folks make of this?

He got what he was looking for in the classifieds?

 

[pudly]

Clueless talking points follower or anti-gun plant. Not sure which.

Doubt he was a classifieds runner as he took a couple of weeks to get there.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He got what he was looking for in the classifieds?

I don't see any posts in any of the WTS threads in his profile; there's also nothing in the feedback thingy, if he cut a deal with someone.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well yeah, that was post 44. He may have gotten the ban hammer. I know he was warned.

 

[actaeon277]

Now that the thread is a week old, I think it's time to observe some things.

The Original Poster joined in Sep. 2015, engaged in a little flurry of posting, established his credentials (I served my country, I'm a certified survivalist, etc.), made his defense of "commonsense gun regulations"...then when called on it, disappeared and hasn't posted since.

What do you folks make of this?

Well yeah, that was post 44. He may have gotten the ban hammer. I know he was warned.

He shows up as "plinker" not "shooter".

I'd say he didn't like the fact that everyone didn't agree.

 

[2A_Tom]

We mere humans could not comprehend his superior intellect and refused to bow to his will, so he returned to Krypton.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Bye, OP!