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.
What are you incinerating? (Or is that insinuating?)...
the ignorance of people in general. many years ago there was a twelve year old kid that went before the michigan legislature and put forth a case for banning dihydrogen monoxide. he laid out his case so well that the legislature was ready right then and there to ban the substance, and eliminate it completely from the state of michigan. it was basically an exercise in gullibility, and is often put forth to try and get people to start thinking critically instead of just going with what the in thing is at the time;
What can possibly help clarify and conclude a gun control debate better than wading into the debate about abortion? I really don't know...
Don't get at me, that was the post I replied to where the replier actually mentioned Planned Parenthood deaths to actually use as a smoke screen to defend gun deaths being "rare."
Call it the "domino effect" if you insist, same as the give an inch they'll take a mile argument. No real difference, but a legitimate case for fearing the worst? I'm not yet convinced, much like so many Americans are so very frustrated that no real gun control/ban of any real consequence has been realized.
Me too. Family still here visiting. Signing off now...
Lol, the domino effect is quite different from the inch/mile concept. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't change to goal of gun banning advocates either way. In that regard there is no difference. indeed your stated "frustration that no real control/ban of any consequence has been realized" speaks to that goal.
I own and use rifles such as ban advocates want confiscated, and I've never hurt anyone who wasn't trying to hurt us first. I just want to be left in peace, with nobody calling for me to turn my weapons in and telling me I have "the blood of children on my hands" if I won't agree to that.
We don't need any more laws that make criminals out of the law abiding. We have far to many of those already. The banners dream state of CA being a prime example of that. "The nations trend setter" where the precedent for a criminal getting shot by a citizen defending themselves from him, and the criminal suing the homeowner and winning was set. They also set the precedent for prosecuting people for self defense as well.
Not exactly a position to be proud of. You must understand, while you may see this group of people who are who just want to shoot everything is sight, we see this group of people who would through us in jail for defending ourselves. There have been nuts who have shot up crowds of people, but the laws that passed because of this punish honest people for lawful acts. I find the latter to be far crazier than these nuts who go on shooting sprees, and these laws are a gift that keeps on giving. Every single day.
Very much what I have argued in the past: banning certain type of weapons does not violate the spirit of the Second Amendment. We still have a Federal law banning private ownership of fully automatic weapons (those that with one sustained squeeze of the trigger will fire ammo until the trigger is released). As you say, the people will be able to purchase handguns, shotguns, and various long rifles (for those worried that mass murderers will be hampered, recall that Charles Whitman used a deer rifle).
No we don’t. You really should learn something about a topic before posting.
Don't get at me, that was the post I replied to where the replier actually mentioned Planned Parenthood deaths to actually use as a smoke screen to defend gun deaths being "rare."
You missed the point, not surprised.
The ant-gun nuts constantly talk about gun deaths.
My question has always been, are they concerned about deaths in general or ONLY gun deaths?
MANY things cause MORE deaths then guns BUT their ONLY complaint is ABOUT GUNS.
Why is that.
Simple, they are NOT concerned about deaths AT ALL.
You've got a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver. Maybe you can win the argument to put breathalyzers in every car.
Cars don't look scary.
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.
I'd like to though. Can't justify 25k dollars for a beat up one or 15k for a RDIAS
