Let's say I have a cake with gun rights written on top...

[Cajundude 0]

Since guns seem to be a popular subject at the moment, and immigrants, and black people (referencing the wingsuit thread), etc… here is a clip I took from my business partners FB page who just happens to be an immigrant who went the the PROPER channels to get his citizenship and he is a (God forbid I say it) a BLACK man… You want to see him go ballistic? Talk about immigration reform, gun control, black oppression, or political correctness, something liberals can't even speak logically about… Lol

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

[mistercwood 287]

I believe the intent along the way has been that you gained a society that was somewhat less inclined to kill itself willy-nilly. This unfortunately has not had the desired effect as there is still a decent portion of your population who are so rage-filled that they consider a gunshot to be an acceptable conclusion to a fistfight. Removing the gun has not removed the rage, sadly...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[Cajundude 0]

You are correct. It will be practically impossible to remove the gun and most certainly from the ones with mal intentions. I fully support background checks but not keeping guns from law abiding citizens no matter what kind they happen to be. Guns don't kill people, people do.

[champu 1]

Cajundude

here is a clip-

magazine.

[Cajundude 0]

champu

***here is a clip-

magazine.

LOL

[champu 1]

Cajundude

LOL

Don't forget to tip your waitress, try the veal, 7 o'clock show different from the 10 o'clock show, etc...

On a more serious note, this is the sentiment I've tried to bring up in the past. As a California resident, I'm as cynical as one can get regarding gun control legislation. Every year there's a pile of gun control laws in the bottom of a lit brown paper bag on my front doorstep.

[shropshire 0]

Everyone knows that cake is really bad for you, so it's in your best interest to give it up


Background checks are like health checks - if I find that you have or are even prone to diabetes ..... you're getting No cake - S.I.U.C.C

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

shropshire

Everyone knows that cake is really bad for you, so it's in your best interest to give it up


Background checks are like health checks - if I find that you have or are even prone to diabetes ..... you're getting No cake - S.I.U.C.C

Suck it up cup cake. That's just rubbing it in.

Question: so if a person is determined to be prone to something, that person loses rights? For example, a person who asks for a gun is more prone to actually use one.

Isn't that a Catch 22 of the type that despots shoot loads about?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

***Everyone knows that cake is really bad for you, so it's in your best interest to give it up


Background checks are like health checks - if I find that you have or are even prone to diabetes ..... you're getting No cake - S.I.U.C.C

Suck it up cup cake. That's just rubbing it in.

Question: so if a person is determined to be prone to something, that person loses rights? For example, a person who asks for a gun is more prone to actually use one.

Isn't that a Catch 22 of the type that despots shoot loads about?

Do we really need to know about the proclivities of shooting single handed??

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

shropshire

Everyone knows that cake is really bad for you, so it's in your best interest to give it up


Background checks are like health checks - if I find that you have or are even prone to diabetes ..... you're getting No cake - S.I.U.C.C

The problem with that is background checks only show what you have done. Not what you are prone to do.

Keep in mind that Cho, Holmes and Laughner all passed their checks. Although Cho shouldn't have, given his mental health history.

And I have a real problem with just taking away some rights. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to have a gun, why aren't they too dangerous to be allowed to run free. There are a lot of dangerous items other than guns. Cars, knives, homemade explosives have all been used.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,112]

wolfriverjoe

***Everyone knows that cake is really bad for you, so it's in your best interest to give it up


Background checks are like health checks - if I find that you have or are even prone to diabetes ..... you're getting No cake - S.I.U.C.C

The problem with that is background checks only show what you have done. Not what you are prone to do.

Keep in mind that Cho, Holmes and Laughner all passed their checks. Although Cho shouldn't have, given his mental health history.

And I have a real problem with just taking away some rights. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to have a gun, why aren't they too dangerous to be allowed to run free. There are a lot of dangerous items other than guns. Cars, knives, homemade explosives have all been used.

Guns, however, outnumber all other murder tools combined by 3:1

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BartsDaddy 7]

***

Bullshit. Math is not your strong point.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[rehmwa 2]

What if I go into a cake shop and request a cake with the words "Gun Ownership is Good" on top.

But the Cake Shop owner is socially and religiously - Anti Gun.
Can they deny me service?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rehmwa

What if I go into a cake shop and request a cake with the words "Gun Ownership is Good" on top.

But the Cake Shop owner is socially and religiously - Anti Gun.
Can they deny me service?

Only if you are a communist homosexual.

[regulator 0]

Thank you captain obvious.

Ironic how Obama says as americans we can't judge all muslims because of the actions of a few bad ones...yet all law abiding gun owners get lumped together for the actions of a few.

Liberal hypocrisy at its best.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

***What if I go into a cake shop and request a cake with the words "Gun Ownership is Good" on top.

But the Cake Shop owner is socially and religiously - Anti Gun.
Can they deny me service?

Only if you are a communist homosexual.

"not that there's anything wrong with that"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rehmwa

******What if I go into a cake shop and request a cake with the words "Gun Ownership is Good" on top.

But the Cake Shop owner is socially and religiously - Anti Gun.
Can they deny me service?

Only if you are a communist homosexual.

"not that there's anything wrong with that"

Obviously there is, or you would be getting your gun-rights-cake

[kallend 2,112]

BartsDaddy

***



Guns, however, outnumber all other murder tools combined by 3:1

Bullshit.

You are correct.

Guns only outnumber all other murder tools combined by a little over 2:1

Mea culpa.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,112]

regulator

... all law abiding gun owners get lumped together for the actions of a few.

Who is doing that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BartsDaddy 7]

kallend

******



Guns, however, outnumber all other murder tools combined by 3:1

Bullshit.

You are correct.

Guns only outnumber all other murder tools combined by a little over 2:1

Mea culpa.
Your still wrong. I dont have the exact number but I would bet rocks alone outnumber guns. I wont even add the clubs, knifes, bricks, pipes, cars and the numerous other items that can be used to kill.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[kallend 2,112]

BartsDaddy

*********



Guns, however, outnumber all other murder tools combined by 3:1

Bullshit.

You are correct.

Guns only outnumber all other murder tools combined by a little over 2:1

Mea culpa.
Your still wrong. I dont have the exact number



Obviously

Quote

but I would bet rocks alone outnumber guns.

Suggest you give up gambling.

Quote

I wont even add the clubs, knifes, bricks, pipes, cars and the numerous other items that can be used to kill.

Tell it to the FBI - it's where the figures come from.

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BartsDaddy 7]

kallend

************



Guns, however, outnumber all other murder tools combined by 3:1

Bullshit.

You are correct.

Guns only outnumber all other murder tools combined by a little over 2:1

Mea culpa.
Your still wrong. I dont have the exact number



Obviously

Quote

but I would bet rocks alone outnumber guns.

Suggest you give up gambling.

Quote

I wont even add the clubs, knifes, bricks, pipes, cars and the numerous other items that can be used to kill.

Tell it to the FBI - it's where the figures come from.

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

There is a huge difference in the total number of murder tools and the number of murder tools actually used to commit murder. so try and twist some more.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[wmw999 2,550]

I don't think Kallend was commenting on the number of different guns; it was a comment on the number of murders that take place using guns as opposed to other tools.

In this table of murders by weapon it seems that in 2011, the FBI recorded 12664 murders (it's been on a downward trend for several years). Of those, 8533 were committed by firearms of some type, meaning that 4131 were committed using other weapons. Of the firearm murders, 6220 were handguns specifically -- the others were long and unspecified guns.

That's the data.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,112]

wmw999

I don't think Kallend was commenting on the number of different guns; it was a comment on the number of murders that take place using guns as opposed to other tools.

In this table of murders by weapon it seems that in 2011, the FBI recorded 12664 murders (it's been on a downward trend for several years). Of those, 8533 were committed by firearms of some type, meaning that 4131 were committed using other weapons. Of the firearm murders, 6220 were handguns specifically -- the others were long and unspecified guns.

That's the data.

Wendy P.

Which is the 2.06:1 ratio, just as I stated.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.