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.
How many do you need in order to be concerned? What's your limit? Or is there no limit? After all, freedom isn't free, right? School shootings are just another way to water the tree of liberty, aren't they? If only all those 13-year-olds had been carrying, they could have unloaded on that punk and blown him away, all while protecting all the other students and teachers within range, right?
See, I pay attention. I can spew the NRA talking points as well as any gun nut.
Here's a perfect example of a LWNJ anti gunner spewing their asinine talking points and putting false words in other people's mouths.
Who the hell are you, personally, talking to while quoting my post?
If it's not me, and you won't say who it is, why exactly did you say "you" and quote my post?
Are you still addressing your strawman?
If you are I can find other things to do while you fight with your imagined demons.
Read it again. And again. And again, if you need to.
I didn't say that you personally have been around for 80 years. You read what you wanted to read, not what was written.
I said that the "conversation about gun control" that you're asking for has been taking place for 80 years, and in that time, concession after concession has been made. THEN I addressed you specifically.
If you can't understand that simple concept, expressed in plain English, then I can't help you. Sorry.
Meh. So what. You couldn't possible care less about gun victims. It's perfectly clear to the sane among us. Why don't you just admit it and stop *****-footing around pretending you do? Save the bandwidth.
Quote:
We want to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens even though it has proven to be ineffective. Meh. So what.
If laws prohibiting things don't work...what are the point of laws prohibiting murder, rape, or theft if it doesn't stop people from doing it?
It gives us a legal foundation for doling out punishment. It doesn't stop those who would murder, rape or steal from murdering, raping or stealing.
The only effect that most gun control laws have is criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens. If a law doesn't or won't have the desired effect, it shouldn't exist.
When I was in High School, a girl intentionally ran over her boyfriend in the school parking lot after an argument. The school debated allowing student to drive to school. Then, a week later, a teacher one town over did the same thing to her husband who was also a teacher.
The idea of banning driving was dropped. Maybe we should ban psychos, not guns.
If laws prohibiting things don't work...what are the point of laws prohibiting murder, rape, or theft if it doesn't stop people from doing it?
The laws give us a context for defining the penalty for commiting the act. The law prevents people from taking the law into their own hands and delivering "justice" themselves.
Do you honestly think that if there was no law against murder, people would suddenly start commiting a bunch of murders? The impulse to kill another human for any reason but self defense is maladaptive from a biological standpoint and thus comes from a defect in the brain, whether permanent or temporary, not the legal status of murder.
I don't support a piece of it. Gun control can exist without that piece. I don't see anything that says it is required.
I thought this was a relatively simple concept.
So, you don't support the complete prohibition of firearms. That's good to know. Now my question is the following:
What gun control would you support that a) prevents people from using firearms in the commission of crime, b) does not infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens, and c) is not already in place but being unenforced because in the words of V.P. Biden "We don't have the time to prosecute"?
If laws prohibiting things don't work...what are the point of laws prohibiting murder, rape, or theft if it doesn't stop people from doing it?
You're contradicting yourself between what you wrote to me and what you wrote to another poster. You say that you don't support the prohibition of firearms, yet you use Britain, Australia, and Japan as examples of "effective" gun control - all countries which have fundamentally prohibited the ownership of firearms by their citizens. Which is it? Do you think that firearms should be prohibited as those countries have done, or do you think that those countries went too far with gun control?
Or do you, as most of us who approach the issue with logic, realize that the effectiveness of gun control laws in other countries has absolutely zero bearing on the effectiveness of gun control laws here?
So can we talk about gun control and yet? Has there been enough bodies to start the conversation yet?
We tried to have a "conversation" with you people after Sandy Hook.... Frankly it was the most one sided and hateful conversation I've ever seen. Your definition of conversation is....
"you agree with everything we say and nod your head and smile while we are saying it or we'll call you gun nut zealots and paint you all as a bunch of conspiracy theorist rednecks"
I see no need to have this "conversation" with you again seeing as the only possible outcome you'll accept is getting everything you want, facts and logic be damned.
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.
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.
