Jump to content

it's the guns...............facts do not lie and i doubt bill maher is lying


Recommended Posts

Uvalde: AR-15
Buffalo: AR-15
Boulder: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Aurora, CO: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Poway Synagogue: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15
It's the guns.

292728292_603151624496018_7517125270332487783_n.jpg

Edited by aubiefifty
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:
Uvalde: AR-15
Buffalo: AR-15
Boulder: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Aurora, CO: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Poway Synagogue: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15
It's the guns.

292728292_603151624496018_7517125270332487783_n.jpg

So if AR-15s did not exist none of those happen? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

So if AR-15s did not exist none of those happen? 

you are getting closer. closer. you are getting warmer. warmer. now you are getting colder..............

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information you quoted is from Maher’s fan page, not Maher.  I doubt Maher is a fan of the AR-15, but your title is misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

you are getting closer. closer. you are getting warmer. warmer. now you are getting colder..............

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The information you quoted is from Maher’s fan page, not Maher.  I doubt Maher is a fan of the AR-15, but your title is misleading.

a slight oversight. and no bill does not care for weapons at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the guns...it's always been the guns. 

 

But Cars kill people... cars have a legitimate societal use that has nothing to do with killing. 

But knives kill people... knives have a legitimate societal use that has nothing to do with killing.  

Guns are designed and built to do damage and to kill. When a gun shoots and kills a person it is being used in the role and for the purpose that it was made for. 

 

it's the guns. 

  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It is the guns...it's always been the guns. 

 

But Cars kill people... cars have a legitimate societal use that has nothing to do with killing. 

But knives kill people... knives have a legitimate societal use that has nothing to do with killing.  

Guns are designed and built to do damage and to kill. When a gun shoots and kills a person it is being used in the role and for the purpose that it was made for. 

 

it's the guns. 

Absolutely true for the AR-15 and like weapons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I don't understand about the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by those who resist changes to gun laws: the general stance is that people should be allowed to own pretty much any personal firearm they wish. However, when asked, the vast majority agree that your average citizen should not be able to own a flamethrower or grenade launcher, even though you can legally own them in some states. Fully automatic weapons were outlawed years ago, and very few argue that they should be legal (technically you could still buy one that is in the national registry, but they're crazy expensive and it's a very difficult process).

Why is banning, or even limiting, citizen ownership of AR-15s (or other "assault" rifles) seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment? The Amendment addresses the right to bear arms. It does not address the specifics of what those arms can be. Would that not indicate that the amendment was written purposefully vague so that future governments would have the leeway to define what arms the average person can own, so as to make sense for needs at the time?  It also does not address where a person may bear arms, so I see no violation if a law is written that prevents having a gun outside of the home. I'm speaking in general terms here, so if shown a gun is used for a specific need, exceptions can be made.

I am not against gun ownership, but I fail to see why some believe that the system we have in place needs no major changes. I believe someone posted in another thread about a group that was parading through a town while carrying rifles and causing concerned phone calls to police, yet the only reason the police could legally stop them was because the group was also carrying brass knuckles. That's such a level of absurdity as to be nearly incomprehensible. White Sox pitcher Liam Hendrix recently pointed out that he had to take a driving test to be licensed here in the States when he emigrated from Australia, but he could walk into a store and by a gun without taking a similar test, and how insane that sounds to anyone not raised in this country.

Gun supporters will often point to situations like Indiana where a licensed owner stops a shooting before it gets worse. As relieved as we all are that the damage was limited, three people still had to die first, not to mention others injured. The person with nefarious intent will always have the upper hand in these situations. Why would we encourage laws that make it more likely for those people to be able to obtain a gun?

I simply do not understand what harm can come from making AR-15 ownership, at the very least, far more difficult than it is. There is a reason that many mass shooters use them, and that many gun owners brag about them. I also believe owning a hand gun should be much more difficult.

Gun culture is far more pronounced in the US than in other developed nations. Gun deaths and rates of violent crime are much lower in Europe and the more developed Asian countries. I knew the rate of gun deaths in Japan was low, but in reading about the recent assassination of Shinzo Abe even I was surprised to see that it's rare for there to be more than 10 firearm deaths a year. In 2020, the US had more than 45,000. Japan's population is more than a third of the US's, and that population is far more concentrated in urban areas. I would be more than happy to hear someone's explanation for why we cannot drastically reduce our rate of gun deaths, and why doing so would not also lead to reduction in other violent crime rates.

Guns are something that we must stop glorifying if we want things to change so we can all feel safer. That will take generations. The longer we wait, the worse it will get. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of a good reason for owning an AR-15 type, dense magazine, automatic rifle. I would ban them immediately. Then on top of that I would require gun registration, training and licensing. Is there any reason why a law abiding citizen would disagree with this? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, creed said:

I can't think of a good reason for owning an AR-15 type, dense magazine, automatic rifle. I would ban them immediately. Then on top of that I would require gun registration, training and licensing. Is there any reason why a law abiding citizen would disagree with this? 

I could but only in extremely special circumstances. People that hunt hogs, for instance, find them extremely useful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUDub said:

I could but only in extremely special circumstances. People that hunt hogs, for instance, find them extremely useful. 

Agreed that special exceptions should be made, but I think we both agree there should be a pretty high bar for the license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, creed said:

I can't think of a good reason for owning an AR-15 type, dense magazine, automatic rifle. I would ban them immediately. Then on top of that I would require gun registration, training and licensing. Is there any reason why a law abiding citizen would disagree with this? 

Automatic weapons are not legal except in rare specific and highly controlled circumstances (the legal ones at least).  Only semi-auto are legal. The reason is the guy breaking into your house at 3:00 am having one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2022 at 11:41 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

It is the guns...it's always been the guns. 

 

But Cars kill people... cars have a legitimate societal use that has nothing to do with killing. 

But knives kill people... knives have a legitimate societal use that has nothing to do with killing.  

Guns are designed and built to do damage and to kill. When a gun shoots and kills a person it is being used in the role and for the purpose that it was made for. 

 

it's the guns. 

It’s also a right to keep and bear arms. Freedom is also legitimate. It’s the people firing the weapons. I know it’s hard for todays society to fully and willfully understand this but it will take a constitutional amendment to change it. Maybe that happens but I hope I’m dead and gone before it does. The continued erosion of our freedoms by the right and left is disgusting. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with this is consistent. 

1) I think background checks and sanity checks are fine. Support 100%

2) Rifles, "Assault" and otherwise make up only 3% of the shootings in America.

3) Handguns kill more people on a bad weekend than all the rifles in America DO IN OVER A YEAR.

4) Bad guys somehow always get guns, no matter how many laws we pass.

5) There were 330M Weapons in homes last nite in America, 330M of them did nothing wrong.

6) Of the few 100s that will be used to kill people this year. we are not targeting getting even one of those guns off the streets. We are targeting getting them out of the hands of Legal, Law Abiding Gun Owners. Why do we not go after the law breakers?????? WHY?

7) I think if we actually were COMMITTED to removing hand guns out of the hands of bad guys, we would see the public far more committed to gun laws.

8) After Uvalde, anyone saying that police will protect you from a bad guy with a gun is just a ******* moron.

Edited by DKW 86
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Automatic weapons are not legal except in rare specific and highly controlled circumstances (the legal ones at least).  Only semi-auto are legal. The reason is the guy breaking into your house at 3:00 am having one.

Not a good reason...too many better options. But if you've been checked, trained and licensed, go for it. Just make sure you don't fire in the direction of your kids room.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

I think background checks and sanity checks are fine

Sanity checks last as long as the time the person walks out of the psych’s office.  It only proves, at one time, the person was sane.  It would be a waste of time and money IMO.

All the other points are right on .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, creed said:

Not a good reason...too many better options. But if you've been checked, trained and licensed, go for it. Just make sure you don't fire in the direction of your kids room.

True, field of fire is an issue.  Our esteemed President said all you need is a shotgun and you can fire thru the door at whomever is there. That didn’t seem very safe to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

True, field of fire is an issue.  Our esteemed President said all you need is a shotgun and you can fire thru the door at whomever is there. That didn’t seem very safe to me.

Any long gun is pretty bad for home defense. At least racking the slide on a shotgun provides an intimidation factor,  but it shooting is in the offing,  handgun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Here's what I don't understand about the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by those who resist changes to gun laws: the general stance is that people should be allowed to own pretty much any personal firearm they wish. However, when asked, the vast majority agree that your average citizen should not be able to own a flamethrower or grenade launcher, even though you can legally own them in some states. Fully automatic weapons were outlawed years ago, and very few argue that they should be legal (technically you could still buy one that is in the national registry, but they're crazy expensive and it's a very difficult process).

Why is banning, or even limiting, citizen ownership of AR-15s (or other "assault" rifles) seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment? The Amendment addresses the right to bear arms. It does not address the specifics of what those arms can be. Would that not indicate that the amendment was written purposefully vague so that future governments would have the leeway to define what arms the average person can own, so as to make sense for needs at the time?  It also does not address where a person may bear arms, so I see no violation if a law is written that prevents having a gun outside of the home. I'm speaking in general terms here, so if shown a gun is used for a specific need, exceptions can be made.

I am not against gun ownership, but I fail to see why some believe that the system we have in place needs no major changes. I believe someone posted in another thread about a group that was parading through a town while carrying rifles and causing concerned phone calls to police, yet the only reason the police could legally stop them was because the group was also carrying brass knuckles. That's such a level of absurdity as to be nearly incomprehensible. White Sox pitcher Liam Hendrix recently pointed out that he had to take a driving test to be licensed here in the States when he emigrated from Australia, but he could walk into a store and by a gun without taking a similar test, and how insane that sounds to anyone not raised in this country.

Gun supporters will often point to situations like Indiana where a licensed owner stops a shooting before it gets worse. As relieved as we all are that the damage was limited, three people still had to die first, not to mention others injured. The person with nefarious intent will always have the upper hand in these situations. Why would we encourage laws that make it more likely for those people to be able to obtain a gun?

I simply do not understand what harm can come from making AR-15 ownership, at the very least, far more difficult than it is. There is a reason that many mass shooters use them, and that many gun owners brag about them. I also believe owning a hand gun should be much more difficult.

Gun culture is far more pronounced in the US than in other developed nations. Gun deaths and rates of violent crime are much lower in Europe and the more developed Asian countries. I knew the rate of gun deaths in Japan was low, but in reading about the recent assassination of Shinzo Abe even I was surprised to see that it's rare for there to be more than 10 firearm deaths a year. In 2020, the US had more than 45,000. Japan's population is more than a third of the US's, and that population is far more concentrated in urban areas. I would be more than happy to hear someone's explanation for why we cannot drastically reduce our rate of gun deaths, and why doing so would not also lead to reduction in other violent crime rates.

Guns are something that we must stop glorifying if we want things to change so we can all feel safer. That will take generations. The longer we wait, the worse it will get. 

 

One word: Marketing.

Ironic that the United States of America will ultimately fail due to unfettered marketing and capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I love this because you can spot the moment Bill's brain breaks trying to find a way to blame it on the left. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is the guns...it's always been the guns. 

Guns are designed and built to do damage and to kill. When a gun shoots and kills a person it is being used in the role and for the purpose that it was made for. 

it's the guns. 

So, me and the rest of America, all 330M that own guns, possibly even yourself, own guns for the sole purpose of killing an innocent person?

 

Edited by DKW 86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG I love Maher more every day. Intelligent informed people having a meaningful discussion...

At 9:20 when Lis blows up people using the Holocaust, Nazis, etc in every conversation, PURE ******* GOLD.

 

 

Edited by DKW 86
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Duchovny was really good in that segment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, me and the rest of America, all 330M that own guns, possibly even yourself, own guns for the sole purpose of killing an innocent person?

 

Not what I said at all. 

Do you dispute that guns are designed and built to kill and maim? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...