Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Statement? I guess the think they are making a statement about non-violence in schools. I agree with you-- It's asinine. Doesn't change my larger argument about the gun culture in this country.
I do not care if you agree about guns, there's nothing you can do about that other than to move out of this country because those rights are and always will be protected. It's just that it's coming more and more common for the side who claims that I'm nuts because i want to use a gun for protection to then turn around and do ridiculously crazy things to try and make a political statement.
I do not care if you agree about guns, there's nothing you can do about that other than to move out of this country because those rights are and always will be protected. It's just that it's coming more and more common for the side who claims that I'm nuts because i want to use a gun for protection to then turn around and do ridiculously crazy things to try and make a political statement.
Perhaps read a bit more carefully, my friend. I know few, if any, liberals who want to deny you the use of a gun for protection should you feel the need to own one.
I do support background checks so your mentally ill neighbor doesn't get to own one and restrictions on military grade weapons in the hands of civilians.
I don't support doing ridiculous and crazy things under most circumstances.
I'm a liberal and I believe you should be allowed to have a gun in your house for protection. However, it's not as simple as that. That isn't what we're arguing over. The parameters of this issue should be addressed.
Perhaps read a bit more carefully, my friend. I know few, if any, liberals who want to deny you the use of a gun for protection should you feel the need to own one.
I do support background checks so your mentally ill neighbor doesn't get to own one and restrictions on military grade weapons in the hands of civilians.
I don't support doing ridiculous and crazy things under most circumstances.
If you can be reasonable, so can I.
Maybe you are reasonable, but the gun grabbers in Congress, led by Harrier's own senator Dianne Feinstein, are not.
By the way, background checks already exist, and the proponents of the failed gun control bill following Newtown openly admitted that the bill would make absolutely no difference.
The objective was to ban guns, not to save lives, which is a direct violation of the U.S. constitution and why the bill did not pass.
Irrational fear? We've got thousands upon thousands of deaths & injuries from firearms every single year in this stupid country and there are people turning a blind eye & pretending it's not a problem, not even worth thinking about. That's what I call irrational, people who are too stupid to know when there's a problem because "I gotta keep my guns!!!!" Give me an effin' break. I'm actually embarrassed by the idiocies of people in this country.
The problem is less the gun and more how this country reacts to a given issue.
We tend to go to extremes. Case in point are the links the OP posted.
The fact that the absolute vast majority of gun owners have never used their firearm to commit a crime is ignored.
On the other side you have the hardcore who fear any form of legislation.
There are gun nuts on both sides of the line.
Most rational gun owners don't fear back ground checks or registration. We are for harsh penalties for violations.
As to your point of thousands upon thousands of deaths and injuries every year.
If you separate the deaths/ injuries caused by guns purchased legally from those from illegal guns it would make the position more honest.
Further separate gun deaths from police shooting suspects and the data would be even more accurate.
I have asked many times and never get an answer. Why punish the absolute vast majority of gun owners for the actions of the very small minority?
There are far more automobile related injuries and deaths than those attributed to guns. Where is your morale outrage? Do you seek to deny every automobile owners rights based on the absolute minority? Remember like gun related deaths we wont filter the data, we'll only use the raw data.
Maybe you are reasonable, but the gun grabbers in Congress, led by Harrier's own senator Dianne Feinstein, are not.
By the way, background checks already exist, and the proponents of the failed gun control bill following Newtown openly admitted that the bill would make absolutely no difference.
The objective was to ban guns, not to save lives, which is a direct violation of the U.S. constitution and why the bill did not pass.
When you speak in those absolute terms ("gun grabbers"), it's clear that you aren't willing to have any kind of reasonable discussion.
No, Adam Lanza already had guns. He was allowed to have guns. Nothing would have stopped him from having guns. No one argues that. But the question doesn't need to be "guns / no guns." It's more complicated than that.
When you speak in those absolute terms ("gun grabbers"), it's clear that you aren't willing to have any kind of reasonable discussion.
No, Adam Lanza already had guns. He was allowed to have guns. Nothing would have stopped him from having guns. No one argues that. But the question doesn't need to be "guns / no guns." It's more complicated than that.
He used his mother's gun, and he was not allowed to use that gun in any manner possible, certainly not to murder 26 people.
You are being disingenuous as well as unreasonable.
Perhaps read a bit more carefully, my friend. I know few, if any, liberals who want to deny you the use of a gun for protection should you feel the need to own one.
I do support background checks so your mentally ill neighbor doesn't get to own one and restrictions on military grade weapons in the hands of civilians.
I don't support doing ridiculous and crazy things under most circumstances.
If you can be reasonable, so can I.
First, I'd like to correct you. Civilians do not typically own "military grade weapons." The military uses automatic rifles, and the civilians use regular rifle that only have the appearance of military grade weapons, but not the functionality. Civilians can legally purchase a "military grade" rifle by purchasing a $200 tax stamp and paying $10,000 or more for the gun, but if they wanted to sell it, the buyer would also have to complete the same process to be able to legally own the "military grade weapon."
Sorry but I did not create this thread to debate your or other's personal views on firearms, and I;m not interested in your views... We obviously disagree on that subject and it would be pointless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.