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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker The court I guess disagreed.
The Justices aren't posting in this thread. If they were, I'm sure they'd be as dismayed (and regaled) as I am over some of the legal and historical arguments presented.
You think? I think they would be dismayed that people really cant understand one of the clearest amendments to the constitution. They would also be puzzled as to why so many dont understand that the way to change it is to change it, not ignore it or say it doesn't matter. As long as its on the books it will matter.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker Its very simple if you take it simply for what it says.
Everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer. If it were that simple, why do you suppose so many people would have spent so much time debating the matter?
Because people like yourself cant be bothered to accept reality & lobby for repeal or amendment of it.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker You find accountability threatening? Interesting concept.
No, I find it a meaningless right-wing buzzword.
Accountability is meaningless? Hmmm, interesting & very common theme in our legal & political world these days. If accountability is meaningless then stop holding all gun owners accountable for the actions of others.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker Personally I think gun crime is too insignificant across the board to warrent the abuses heaped on gun owners.
Well, we'll try to ramp that up for you so as to better grab your attention.
So now you are saying that if crime isn't sufficient to warrant outlawing guns you will take steps to increase it? Wow, you are full of great ideas!
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker You point out the lives that it costs & then say that its incredibly rare in the instances I point out.
That would be because the big splashy events that you refer to are extremely rare, while the background drip-drip-drip of everyday gun casualties mounts up each year to staggering levels.
Quote:
Staggering levels eh. Since the things I mention are insignificant & I'v mentioned most crimes against innocents I imagine your concern is gang members or other violent criminals killing each other?
I dont think there is a drip drip drip & if there is then fix the leak, dont shut off the water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker Guns are most widely found in gun shops & gun shows. Thats where your gun crime is? Or do you mean you only hear about guns where they are used in crime & thats in bad areas?
And money is most widely found in banks. Yet I'm still able to notice that some neighborhoods are more wealthy than others. Clever me, eh?
Not real clever, pretty meaningless actually.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker I shoot doorknobs for practice.
Not when you don't see them coming. Doorknobs are a lot like the Spanish Inquisition -- nobody expects them. One conk, and down you go, big boy...
Would that be a veiled threat? I'd think door knob owners were more responsible than that. Perhaps we need more doorknob restrictions.
Man, if it were up to Saganista, there would be no liquor because of all the DWI deaths, no cars because of all the car accident deaths, no prescription drugs because of all the drug overdoses, no swimming because of all the drownings, no smoking because of all the cancer deaths, no fast food because of all the heart-attacks, and no sex because that may produce a child which may die in a way listed.
The gun is a vehicle. Itself it is harmless. It's the person that is controlling said gun that does the killing. I always believed in gun control myself.....two hands on the gun as you take aim. (old joke I know. sorry)
However, there are other purposes to the other items you listed, other than KILLING something or someone else. The purpose of a gun is to eject a projectile at high speed...it's not going to used as a paperweight, a doorstop, a hammer...
I am a socialist and I do not want to take your or to have anyone take my guns.
Since when are socialists pro-gun? For that matter, when are they pro-individual rights? Please tell me you can give examples for socialists who allow individual ownership?
However, there are other purposes to the other items you listed, other than KILLING something or someone else. The purpose of a gun is to eject a projectile at high speed...it's not going to used as a paperweight, a doorstop, a hammer...
You are right, but they can stop Chucky Chan in his tracks.
Since when are socialists pro-gun? For that matter, when are they pro-individual rights? Please tell me you can give examples for socialists who allow individual ownership?
I think Greg is more a fiscal socialist than a social socialist.
Its confusing until you see his posts awhile. I'm not sure his position is realistic but he steadilly supports individual rights so, to me anyway, he's ok.
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.
