A simple fact that is very hard to argue against.

Name one senator or congressman who is calling for disarming US citizens

 

Then we have no disagreement. I keep all my guns, and you can keep yours.

Or are there some guns that the left do want to take away? If so, you're guilty of intellectual dishonesty by not being more specific. This vagueness is intentional, and we both know that.

 

Standard operating procedure for neo marxist leftists.

 

I will admit that I do appreciate how you guys use vagueness as well as the overall long term game plan to eventually disarm us all, but we're on to you.

 

So your example is a senator trying to reinstate an assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004?

Because I thought we were talking about disarming US citizens

 

That video is from 1995 and she was talking about how she would have loved to include all guns, rather than just "assault rifles". She had already gotten the assault rifle ban, but admits she wanted them all.

 

What makes you think "The Left" doesn't have firearms? My brother is a bit left than me and he has a gun safe.

Personally I haven't had a firearm since my muzzleloader Kentucky long rifle, but since I'm semi rural now I've been debating on getting a field shotgun in case I have to dispatch a rabid animal or a coyote.

 

This condensing everything together to come up with a value that you disagree with is one of the signs of cognitive dissonance.

It's a straw argument, and I'm pretty sure you know that it is. You just thought you'd throw out this personal anecdote of one scotsman who doesn't like whiskey in order to argue that the scots don't like whiskey.

 

The left wants safety in this country, not deranged lunatics representing us on a world stage.

Its also fact that more guns will lead to stupid people killing stupid people, shooting each other. The same kind of stupid eating Tide Pods. Why does the right want this?

 

Good point. The criminals will have arms, regardless of the laws.

 

Ok----------------you and the other gun grabbers can start by taking the guns away from every single criminal in the country.

 

If that is a fact, then show how it is true in the United States.

hint; most guns are in trump country, and we're not the ones killing each other like they do in the cities.

Have you not been listening? It's time to come up with real facts. Just saying "fact" isn't worth a bean.

 

The vast majority of gun owners aren't in the NRA, aren't all that political, and don't care about gun control.

Like people in the Armed Forces they occupy all races, creeds, religions, and political beliefs.

 

So do normal citizens.

Three pistols and a rifle (the big scary black one) are all locked up in my closet and they sure as hell ain't goin anywhere.

As my special forces marine father used to always say, "I would rather have my guns and not need them, than need them and not have them"

The fact that the MASSIVE majority of guns are illegal already when used to kill people goes to show that laws aren't going to do squat to get rid of the problem of gun violence.

Not to mention, if you take out the top worst 5 cities in the US (Detroit, Baltimore, St Louis, New Orleans, Birmingham) which are all heavily Democratic voting bloc, the United states goes from the 4th worst country for gun homicide to the 4th best country of gun homicide.

Doing the same thing to other countries have no effect, the large cities of other countries have no where near the violence of the United States inner cities.

After reading a thread on PF about this a week or so ago I was shocked, it basically means the United States as a whole is an incredibly safe place to live, unless you live in the top 5-10 (heavily Democratic leaning) cities that are EXTREMELY violent.

 

That is false, she was referring to assault weapons.


Cox said that Feinstein had once said "if she had 51 votes in the Senate for 'Mr. and Ms. America , turn in all of your guns,' they would do it."

This is an inaccurate characterization of what Feinstein said in a 1995 interview on assault-type weapons. It is clear in context about loopholes in the 1994 assault weapon ban that Feinstein would have liked the ban to apply to all assault weapons but did not have the votes.

That is a far cry from banning all firearms, and Feinstein has said she supports the right of people to own a weapon for hunting or self-defense.

We rate this claim False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/

and for the record, one could not legally ban all guns in the US with 51 senate votes

 

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time. Take the guns first, go through due process second." Donald Trump

Sure, the left wants to take away your guns...

 

Sorry, but I don't buy it. and I got the video to provie it, and we'll just have to disagree.
and sure they could. They couldn't amend the constitution, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. All they had to do was to define "assault rifles" as anything that fires ammo. That assault rifle ban was never constitutional to begin with, which is why scotus never dared touch any of those cases, and why it was not a permanent ban.

I know feinstein, and she's had it in for people with guns (except her security guards) ever since that Harvey Milk incident.

 

Wikileaks published the hacked DNC and Podesta e-mails exposing that the Democratic party is a corrupt political criminal organization and inside every liberal there's a totalitarian screaming to get out.

Now you know why the left want to disarm everyone.

 

The Democrats weren't happy with the results of the 1860 Presidential election and 420,000 Americans were killed during civil war.

But then again back in 1860 there was no known therapy like Play-Dough, crayons and coloring books for LDS (Lincoln Deranged Syndrome)

 

1. Even in the video, she never says she wants to completely disarm all Americans. That part is made up

2. What the video does not include is the previous question from the interviewer in which he addresses that the assault weapons ban did not include assault weapons made before the ban’s effective date of Sept. 13, 1994, in which Feinstein responded that if she could have included "every one of them" (referring to the grandfathered assault weapons) she would have, but she could not get the 51 votes needed to do so.

3. Feinstein has repeated before that she supports the ownership of firearms for hunting and self defense. Which is a clear enough statement in itself that she does not support disarming all Americans. In her own words "Let me be clear: If an individual wants to purchase a weapon for hunting or self-defense, I support that right"

4. You cannot legally disarm all Americans with 51 senate votes. The "51 votes" remark refers to the assault weapons ban, not to all firearms. In the words of Feisntein herself "If I had my way, I would ban the possession of assault weapons anywhere in the United States of America, but there were not going to be the votes for that. This is a moderate law"

This isn't theoretical, you are wrong, she never said she wanted to completely disarm all Americans.

 

Fair enough. I don't know what she said before so it very well could have been taken out of context.

 

No it is only Ruth Balder Ginsberg that wants to overturn the Second Amendment. The supreme court could do it with a simple ruling. They don't need no stinkin congress.

 

Correct

 

They often do not say outright that they wish to disarm all Americans but that is the goal and what she wants.

We have seen EVERY time that gun control laws fail and when they fail the answer is more laws.

The goal is to incrementally abolish the right to bear arms

 

Because victims prefer unarmed criminals.