Questions To Anti Gun Libs And..

[calfoxwc]

Seriously, now.

 

1. The assault weapon ban idea was tried by Clinton and Feinstein back in 1994. It was a failure.

To get it passed, they had to accept it as only a ten year bill. Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, issued

a request to the Urban Institute, a well respected left leaning think tank in D.C., to do a study

on the effectiveness of the ban. The study was another condition of the bill they had to accept to get it passed.

The Urban Institute's report came out in 2004, and was published by the National Institutes of Justice,

the research arm of the Justice Dept....

They found that the ban had zero beneficial impact. No reduction in homicides, no reduction in the number of shots

fired during crimes, no reduction in deaths of police officers. There was a slight impact on the kind of weapons criminals used

in crimes, but the change of models had NO benefit in terms of reduced crime or injury. The ban outlawed the sale of

new magazines that held more than ten rounds. Again, NO discernible benefit.

 

QUESTION:

 

so, why support an assault ban now, since it is a failed "solution" ?

 

2. In the mid 1960's, New York City had rapidly rising street crime. The hoodlums mugging Central Park visitors,

and robbing liquor stores, etc, were not the law abiding citizens of NYC. But, the NYC council passed gun registration.

It did nothing to stop crime at all. They said the registration would only cost a few bucks, and if it didn't work, it would not

hurt anything. Crime got worse. The city was becoming very dangerous, even unlivable, so, in 1991, they passed

a ban on "assault weapons". Crime got worse, so the NY state police conducted raids/inspections on every gun owner's house

whose registered gun had been outlawed by the last bill. They forced gun owners to take their guns out of the city, or turn them over to the gov.

Crime still got worse.

 

QUESTION: Why? Why think that gun registration, bans that only affect law abiding citizens, will do anything to stop crime?

 

 

3. In 1977, Pete Shields, former president of the Brady Campaign said:

 

"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.

 

'The second problem is to get all handguns registered"

 

The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, police, licenses security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and

licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." *

 

QUESTION: Why doubt that talk of registration of guns leads to gun confiscation ? Why deny it?

 

4. During WWII, gun registration rolls in the Weimar Republic in Germany, and the Third Republic in France, fell into the hands of Nazis,

then in all the countries they conquered. In Germany, all guns were confiscated from the Jews, and anyone else who was considered to

be utterly obedient to the Nazis. Then, guns were confiscated from everyone in other countries. If a family could not produce a registered firearm

that was registered to anyone in the family...to surrender it to authorities.... the entire family would be executed on the spot.

 

The Soviets confiscated all guns in the Soviet Union, and all Eastern European countries that the Soviets took over after WWII using gun registration lists.

 

In 1993, Congress set up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It required that once the background checks were completed, the records

of the sale would be destroyed.

 

QUESTION: Do you understand why registration is very serious, and dangerous, and does no good at all? And, so you understand why background checks must

be destroyed afterwards?

 

5. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, published his book, Point Black: Guns and Violence in America , That book was awarded the highest honor

by the American society of Criminology... The Michael J. Hindelang book award "for the greatest contribution to criminology in a three year period." He studied

many years of crime date from the 75 largest cities in the U.S. The study controlled variables such as poverty, race, arrest rates etc.

 

His study found NO crime-reductive benefits from gun registration.

 

QUESTION: Do you still support gun registration, and why?

[Westside Steve]

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648

[calfoxwc]

So....

 

there aren't any anti gun PEOPLE on the board now?

 

All the pro ban, gun control people changed their minds?

 

Cool. I figured that Steve and I being serious about it would

 

be convincing. Yay !!!

[The Cysko Kid]

I'm still here Cal, I just don't have time to have this arguement again. Some of the mania on here is draining.

[calfoxwc]

Oh, you know better than that. Steve and I made serious, valid points that are just..... the truth.

 

Don't be like heckbunker and run and hide when you don't want to admit you were wrong.....

 

 

Everybody wants to work towards a *solution*, but

 

most all of us won't whip ourselves with chains because "something has to be done".

 

Seriously, can you find fault with the history above?

[The Cysko Kid]

We've already had this discussion. Like, twenty times. Every thread is a rehash of a rehash. It's like posting in the twilight zone or something.

[calfoxwc]

Ask anyone on the board - I took the time to do a bit of research, and REALLY prove my point.

 

This is where you either admit you are wrong, or you go heckbunker on the board, and run and hide

 

behind "oh, I'm so busy "ahem" right now" or "er...uh....we've already discussed this subject..."

 

or "my little pinkie finger is sore, and it's making me cry too much to discuss this subject all of a sudden."

 

Seriously,

 

the emotionalism of the "cause" knee-jerking of libs is to rational, legit, researched discussion like anti-matter is to matter.

 

All that venting, and not one rational explanation about your anti-gun stance?

 

Come on, Cysko. Don't bail to save face. It isn't that. It's trying to get to the bottom of the irrationality, and getting to a genuine,

 

no-ulterior motive work towards an honest solution. Those kids and adults that you and Obamao rely on to make your venting legit deserve better

 

than bailing and balking at discussing, rationally that is, a real solution to a real problem.

[The Cysko Kid]

Except I've never supported a gun ban so the well thought out point is completely moot.

[calfoxwc]

An assault weapon ban is a gun ban, for goodness sakes.

 

A simple answering to each question, yes or no, or an explanation otherwise,

 

would be appropriate and valid.

[The Cysko Kid]

How about "I don't care"

[calfoxwc]

You could have fooled the rest of us.

 

You don't care NOW, about those kids murdered at Newtown?

 

Convenient, or profoundly moody...or what?

[The Cysko Kid]

You could have fooled the rest of us.

 

You don't care NOW, about those kids murdered at Newtown?

 

Convenient, or profoundly moody...or what?

 

I don't care to argue your inane bullshit anymore. Take it however you want, I don't care. I'm not sure if I could possibly be more clear.

[calfoxwc]

Well, at least you quit screaming and venting. But when it comes right down to it,

 

you are bailing because I made some very excellent points, with very excellent logic behind them,

 

and Steve's post added more to it. Honestly, you've protested that you quit and that surely takes a hell of a lot

 

more energy than just answering the very serious questions.

 

That's like hs football team quitting the game just before the end of the 4th quarter, and they are all of a sudden down

 

by two touchdowns.

 

And they think they didn't lose the game, because they quit just in time.

 

bah.

[calfoxwc]

Any other anti-gun, anti-assault weapon emotionally charged baloney from anybody else,

 

since Cysko took a powder ?

 

Heckbunker? No comment?

 

No surprise.

 

Liberals are political issue carpetbaggers.

[The Cysko Kid]

I'm just tired of this conversation. Check a couple of other threads. It's been done and done. The best thing is that you think, since I won't argue with you, that you've won something. You've won the I don't give a shit lottery

[calfoxwc]

I won it before you quit, Cysko. Just say "no" to being a lib run and hider like heckbunker does with Steve and the rest of us

 

every time he gets in over his head - which most of the time happens when Steve kicks his ass into a deep cesspool

 

of heckbunker rationalizations and warped re-definitions.

 

 

[The Cysko Kid]

Jesus Christ your intelligence level is showing cal. I know to some degree we all play characters of ourselves on here, I hope this is just your character and like ghoolie you're not actually this person.

[calfoxwc]

Right. Now, that I got you to respond several times, what happened to

 

"gee, I just can't go on, so I won't respond to the excellent points you made in the start of the thread" thing?

 

Eh? Look, more than a couple of us have told you that you were being unreasonable and illogical with

 

your emotional outbursts on the subject, which you alleged to be very serious about.

 

Now, the entire board can see that when it all comes down to serious discussion, which I DID DO,

 

and Steve's post following was right on the money, you won't engage it.

 

But you'll go on and on with "I'm not continuing" again and again...

 

You "cared" so much about the murdered kids at Newport, but when it all comes down to it...

 

it was just a lib political gambit.

[calfoxwc]

Here. lest you pull a heckbunker, and go until you can change the subject away from the thread:

 

(and really, any anti-gun poster can respond. It's always okay if you disagree with me...but you disagree

 

with libs and they just......can't........stand..... it. Cysko, I'm not trying to best you, I just wanted

 

to be very serious, and back up my assertions/beliefs with some legit reasoning behind it.

 

They are just questions. There isn't any fine for answering in your own words.

 

I just wanted to give you a chance to explain you side of things...rationally. If you can't back up

 

your anti gun stances like I did my pro gun stances...then you probly' need to re-examine

 

what you really think, and why you think it.

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

 

 

Seriously, now.

1. The assault weapon ban idea was tried by Clinton and Feinstein back in 1994. It was a failure.

To get it passed, they had to accept it as only a ten year bill. Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, issued

a request to the Urban Institute, a well respected left leaning think tank in D.C., to do a study

on the effectiveness of the ban. The study was another condition of the bill they had to accept to get it passed.

The Urban Institute's report came out in 2004, and was published by the National Institutes of Justice,

the research arm of the Justice Dept....

They found that the ban had zero beneficial impact. No reduction in homicides, no reduction in the number of shots

fired during crimes, no reduction in deaths of police officers. There was a slight impact on the kind of weapons criminals used

in crimes, but the change of models had NO benefit in terms of reduced crime or injury. The ban outlawed the sale of

new magazines that held more than ten rounds. Again, NO discernible benefit.

QUESTION:

so, why support an assault ban now, since it is a failed "solution" ?

2. In the mid 1960's, New York City had rapidly rising street crime. The hoodlums mugging Central Park visitors,

and robbing liquor stores, etc, were not the law abiding citizens of NYC. But, the NYC council passed gun registration.

It did nothing to stop crime at all. They said the registration would only cost a few bucks, and if it didn't work, it would not

hurt anything. Crime got worse. The city was becoming very dangerous, even unlivable, so, in 1991, they passed

a ban on "assault weapons". Crime got worse, so the NY state police conducted raids/inspections on every gun owner's house

whose registered gun had been outlawed by the last bill. They forced gun owners to take their guns out of the city, or turn them over to the gov.

Crime still got worse.

QUESTION:

Why? Why think that gun registration, bans that only affect law abiding citizens, will do anything to stop crime?

3. In 1977, Pete Shields, former president of the Brady Campaign said:

"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.

'The second problem is to get all handguns registered"

The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, police, licenses security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and

licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." *

QUESTION:

Why doubt that talk of registration of guns leads to gun confiscation ? Why deny it?

4. During WWII, gun registration rolls in the Weimar Republic in Germany, and the Third Republic in France, fell into the hands of Nazis,

then in all the countries they conquered. In Germany, all guns were confiscated from the Jews, and anyone else who was considered to

be utterly obedient to the Nazis. Then, guns were confiscated from everyone in other countries. If a family could not produce a registered firearm

that was registered to anyone in the family...to surrender it to authorities.... the entire family would be executed on the spot.

The Soviets confiscated all guns in the Soviet Union, and all Eastern European countries that the Soviets took over after WWII using gun registration lists.

In 1993, Congress set up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It required that once the background checks were completed, the records

of the sale would be destroyed.

QUESTION: Do you understand why registration is very serious, and dangerous, and does no good at all? And, so you understand why background checks must

be destroyed afterwards?

5. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, published his book, Point Black: Guns and Violence in America , That book was awarded the highest honor

by the American society of Criminology... The Michael J. Hindelang book award "for the greatest contribution to criminology in a three year period." He studied

many years of crime date from the 75 largest cities in the U.S. The study controlled variables such as poverty, race, arrest rates etc.

His study found NO crime-reductive benefits from gun registration.

QUESTION: Do you still support gun registration, and why?

[The Cysko Kid]

This is utterly pointless and I'm done with it. Pretty soon this board will have degenerated to three guys constantly having a circle jerk. Exciting fare, for you, I'm sure. You might have noticed I'm done caring about any of your bullshit, rehashed, conspiracy theory nonsense. When you posit any sort of interesting or original thought, or when the browns return to the gridiron, I may become interested enough to speak to you again. Then again, maybe not, Good day.

[The Cysko Kid]

Feel free to crow about how you've won some sort of victory, by making me so completely sick of you that I'm disgusted with myself for even lowering myself to your level of intelligence to bother speaking with you. I'm sure in your twisted mind that's called winning something, but there's nothing to win. There's only me wasting time I ought to be spending with my family arguing nonsense with a soybean farmer who has nothing to do all winter except act crazy and watch glen beck. I'm not doing it anymore. Woody may have that kind of time. I don't. Once again, good day. Have the final word, Cal, if it will make you feel important.

[calfoxwc]

Seriously, now.

 

 

1. The assault weapon ban idea was tried by Clinton and Feinstein back in 1994. It was a failure.

To get it passed, they had to accept it as only a ten year bill. Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, issued

a request to the Urban Institute, a well respected left leaning think tank in D.C., to do a study

on the effectiveness of the ban. The study was another condition of the bill they had to accept to get it passed.

The Urban Institute's report came out in 2004, and was published by the National Institutes of Justice,

the research arm of the Justice Dept....

They found that the ban had zero beneficial impact. No reduction in homicides, no reduction in the number of shots

fired during crimes, no reduction in deaths of police officers. There was a slight impact on the kind of weapons criminals used

in crimes, but the change of models had NO benefit in terms of reduced crime or injury. The ban outlawed the sale of

new magazines that held more than ten rounds. Again, NO discernible benefit.

 

 

QUESTION:

 

 

so, why support an assault ban now, since it is a failed "solution" ?

 

 

2. In the mid 1960's, New York City had rapidly rising street crime. The hoodlums mugging Central Park visitors,

and robbing liquor stores, etc, were not the law abiding citizens of NYC. But, the NYC council passed gun registration.

It did nothing to stop crime at all. They said the registration would only cost a few bucks, and if it didn't work, it would not

hurt anything. Crime got worse. The city was becoming very dangerous, even unlivable, so, in 1991, they passed

a ban on "assault weapons". Crime got worse, so the NY state police conducted raids/inspections on every gun owner's house

whose registered gun had been outlawed by the last bill. They forced gun owners to take their guns out of the city, or turn them over to the gov.

Crime still got worse.

 

 

QUESTION:

Why? Why think that gun registration, bans that only affect law abiding citizens, will do anything to stop crime?

 

 

 

 

3. In 1977, Pete Shields, former president of the Brady Campaign said:

 

 

"The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.

 

 

'The second problem is to get all handguns registered"

 

 

The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, police, licenses security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and

licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." *

 

 

QUESTION:

Why doubt that talk of registration of guns leads to gun confiscation ? Why deny it?

 

 

4. During WWII, gun registration rolls in the Weimar Republic in Germany, and the Third Republic in France, fell into the hands of Nazis,

then in all the countries they conquered. In Germany, all guns were confiscated from the Jews, and anyone else who was considered to

be utterly obedient to the Nazis. Then, guns were confiscated from everyone in other countries. If a family could not produce a registered firearm

that was registered to anyone in the family...to surrender it to authorities.... the entire family would be executed on the spot.

 

 

The Soviets confiscated all guns in the Soviet Union, and all Eastern European countries that the Soviets took over after WWII using gun registration lists.

 

 

In 1993, Congress set up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It required that once the background checks were completed, the records

of the sale would be destroyed.

 

 

QUESTION: Do you understand why registration is very serious, and dangerous, and does no good at all? And, so you understand why background checks must

be destroyed afterwards?

 

 

5. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, published his book, Point Black: Guns and Violence in America , That book was awarded the highest honor

by the American society of Criminology... The Michael J. Hindelang book award "for the greatest contribution to criminology in a three year period." He studied

many years of crime date from the 75 largest cities in the U.S. The study controlled variables such as poverty, race, arrest rates etc.

 

 

His study found NO crime-reductive benefits from gun registration.

 

 

QUESTION: Do you still support gun registration, and why?

[Erie Dawg]

[calfoxwc]

crickets are still chirping.

 

Heckbunker has no answers?

 

Cysko went and hid somewhere?

 

Where's the alleged lib "beef" of their emotional posturing?

 

"The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind. The answer is blowin in the wind...." @@