Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[VinBucFan]

Except it does matter when someone is trying to argue that if we get rid of the guns (or some of the guns or whatever), then we get rid of the violence.  What percentage of violent crimes are committed with a gun?

 getting rid of  guns (all or some) = getting rid of the violence. That's an argument that you claim "someone" has made?   Provide the link please?  Note your follow-up question, which asks "what percentage of violent crimes are committed with a guns"? That follow up question can only be read as you believing that "someone" has made the argument that "getting rid of guns (all or some) = getting rid of the violence"  so I would love to see the link to that.


REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GUNS SHOULD = A REDUCTION IN GUN VIOLENCE

I cant way to see the link where someone argued  "getting rid of  guns (all or some) = getting rid of the violence"

"pants on fire" is an expression that comes to mind. 

[olafberserker]

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1301767.0.html

[olafberserker]

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1303027.255.html

[VinBucFan]

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1301767.0.html

So, what you do by posting that link, which is a link to an entire thread, is you admit your LIE right?  You're admitting that no one has actually made the argument that you claim "someone" made because if it was true you would just post the link, right?  What you are saying is that your claim was FALSE (a recurring theme with you) because not only did "someone" not say what you claim they did . . . in reality NO ONE said what you did.

Again, here's the straw man argument you put up:

Except it does matter when someone is trying to argue that if we get rid of the guns (or some of the guns or whatever), then we get rid of the violence.  What percentage of violent crimes are committed with a gun?

Now, where's the link for "someone" actually making that argument?  Like I have said . . . . . "pants on fire" . .  . I will keep looking for the link even though I am pretty sure its not coming and you are left . .  once again . . . having to back peddle from a ridiculously FALSE claim.

[Dolorous Jason]

REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GUNS SHOULD = A REDUCTION IN GUN VIOLENCE

I cant way to see the link where someone argued  "getting rid of  guns (all or some) = getting rid of the violence"

 CBW , is that you

Instead of parsing that particular phrasing for 5 more pages , like the Black Hole would , why don't you address the stupidity of the premise itself ?

  I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with. You've said you favor my right to bear arms , so I will have at least 1 gun, and so will everyone else who wants one .... even in your Chickensh!t Utopia . ( Very few crimes require my shooting two guns at once, anyways , last I checked  ) . Therefore you have done nothing of real significance to actually reduce the probability of gun violence,  or violence in general for that matter , by "reducing" guns. ( what does that even mean? )

You want to be an anti-gun crusader , fine. But let me know when you are going to grow the balls to argue for policies that would actually have an impact  . Even though I'd still disagree , at least you wouldn't sound like a dishonest hypocrite.

[Biggs3535]

Since this is obviously truthful, because both you and CBW posted it - how many guns that have been sold have been used to kill someone?  And how many guns that have been sold have not been used to kill someone?

It doesn't really matter.

Of course not.  Why would a silly thing like "facts" matter in a discussion where emotional rants and inferior opinions run rampant?

Damn, and here I was thinking I would get an intellectually honest and mature " you know, I was wrong "

Here's another case where PeanutButterCheeseBoy will continue to treat his lie as a fact, in hopes that someone will believe him that the Heller ruling was bad for the 2nd Amendment.  He'll beat this drum incessantly until someone, and I'm pretty sure he'll take anyone, will jump on his side of the dumbass street.

[VinBucFan]

REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GUNS SHOULD = A REDUCTION IN GUN VIOLENCE

I cant way to see the link where someone argued  "getting rid of  guns (all or some) = getting rid of the violence"

 CBW , is that you

Instead of parsing that particular phrasing for 5 more pages , like the Black Hole would , why don't you address the stupidity of the premise itself ?

  I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with. You've said you favor my right to bear arms , so I will have at least 1 gun, and so will everyone else who wants one .... even in your Chickensh!t Utopia .

1. Do you realize that if we re-named the US to be "chicken**CENSORED** Uopia" and we followed your reading of the "right to bear arms" there would ONLY be about 50 million guns in this country?  We have more than SIX TIMES that at 310 million.

2. Or how about this?  You said " I only need ONE gun to commit a violent gun crime with"  True and if that gun carries six bullets how many peopel could you kill compared to if it carries 300 bullets and empties its magazine in  less than a minute?

See ... you just successfully pointed out why we should REDUCE the number of guns and eliminate those that serve no real purpose but to kill MANY human beings really fast

[VinBucFan]

Here's another case where PeanutButterCheeseBoy will continue to treat his lie as a fact, in hopes that someone will believe him that the Heller ruling was bad for the 2nd Amendment.  He'll beat this drum incessantly until someone, and I'm pretty sure he'll take anyone, will jump on his side of the dumbass street.

Haha, I never expect you to jump on my side of the street.  In fact not only will you NEVER jump on my side of the street -- the side that includes nearly  the entire legal profession, Constitutional scholars, law school professors, US Senators and Congressmen and more -- BUT you will actually stand on the other side of the street and scream at everyone on my side about how they are "dumb" or "stupid.  LOL

Really, that's part of your "charm"  . . . . .. you're like a weird comedy routine or carnival show.

[Biggs3535]

Here's another case where PeanutButterCheeseBoy will continue to treat his lie as a fact, in hopes that someone will believe him that the Heller ruling was bad for the 2nd Amendment.  He'll beat this drum incessantly until someone, and I'm pretty sure he'll take anyone, will jump on his side of the dumbass street.

Haha, I never expect you to jump on my side of the street.  In fact not only will you NEVER jump on my side of the street -- the side that includes nearly  the entire legal profession, Constitutional scholars, law school professors, US Senators and Congressmen and more -- BUT you will actually stand on the other side of the street and scream at everyone on my side about how they are "dumb" or "stupid.  LOL

Really, that's part of your "charm"  . . . . .. you're like a weird comedy routine or carnival show.

http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleALD.jsp?id=1202586287375&slreturn=20130112102814

With its December 11 ruling striking down a Chicago law forbidding individuals from carrying guns in public, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit delivered the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) a major victory—and handed the group's lawyer, Virginia litigator Alan Gura, yet another big win.

For Gura, a one-time Sidley Austin associate who is now the co-owner of Gura and Possessky, the Second Circuit ruling followed earlier triumphs in a pair of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases: District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. By persuading the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of individuals to own firearms in Heller and McDonald—cases that found the Court weighing the scope of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years—Gura burnished his reputation as the gun rights movement's go-to advocate.

"He's clearly proven to be the top Second Amendment lawyer by virtue of the fact that he argued and won both Heller and McDonald," says Cato Institute chairman Robert Levy, whose organization financed the Heller litigation and hired Gura to make its case.

What is this?  PeanutButterCheeseBoy wants the world to believe the Heller case wasn't a win for the Second Amendment, and yet every other human being in with a brain in their noodle knows it was a victory.  Keep telling the board the sky is brown.  I'm sure some simpleton will latch on to your nonsense.

[olafberserker]

If only you could read like vincent p b can read

[VinBucFan]

Buggsy,  lol. Screaming from the other side of the road. Lol.

I am sure to be wasting my time Buggsy, but if you go back and read what I said was that the 2nd Amendnent says what it says. There is right to bear arms so your premise (a win for the 2nd amendment") is where you keep going wrong. Here's simple proof of that, part of the Court disagreed with the majority. This group wrote a dissenting opinion. It start with this:

"The question presented by this case is not whether the second amendment protects a collective right or an individual right. Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."


"Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." In other words, the 2nd amendment says what it says. Even the dissenters were never going to rule AGAINST the 2nd Amendment. The only question was the SCOPE of the right and the very conservative court construed it as a very limited right.

Man ...

[VinBucFan]

If only you could read like vincent p b can read

You sure are an angry little cuss ...

[Biggs3535]

Buggsy,  lol. Screaming from the other side of the road. Lol.

I am sure to be wasting my time Buggsy, but if you go back and read what I said was that the 2nd Amendnent says what it says. There is right to bear arms so your premise (a win for the 2nd amendment") is where you keep going wrong. Here's simple proof of that, part of the Court disagreed with the majority. This group wrote a dissenting opinion. It start with this:

"The question presented by this case is not whether the second amendment protects a collective right or an individual right. Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."


"Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." In other words, the 2nd amendment says what it says. Even the dissenters were never going to rule AGAINST the 2nd Amendment. The only question was the SCOPE of the right and the very conservative court construed it as a very limited right.

Man ...

Do you even know that the Supreme Courts ruling struck down DC's ban on handguns?  Yet you're still trying back up this nonsense?

Heller is not a pro-gun decision by any means

GTFOH PeanutButterCheeseBoy.  You are a caricature to laugh at, and that is all.

[VinBucFan]

Read Buggsy, read. A very conservative court by only the slimmest majority struck down a DC gun ban (and nothing more - you understand that right?) SOLELY because it was a total prohibition against handguns in a home.

The very argument you make proves you don't understand what you're typing. Like I said, standing across screaming at everyone else as if they are the dumb ones.

[Biggs3535]

Read Buggsy, read. A very conservative court by only the slimmest majority struck down a DC gun ban (and nothing more - you understand that right?) SOLELY because it was a total prohibition against handguns in a home.

Wait - the Supreme Court overturned a ban on handguns?  You're right, that's "not a pro-gun decision by any means".

Dips***.