Between topper and spoon this thread has gone so far off coarse it may well never get back on coarse. Maybe it is tie to lock this thread.
As does any other thread they infest. It is best to ignore them completely and let them play with each other until they become bored.
Between topper and spoon this thread has gone so far off coarse it may well never get back on coarse. Maybe it is tie to lock this thread.
As does any other thread they infest. It is best to ignore them completely and let them play with each other until they become bored.Perhaps the pair of you would like to try and get us back on track?
Perhaps someone would like to explain the logic of more guns saving lives? Making USA a safer place?
Logically less guns = more safety.
Between topper and spoon this thread has gone so far off coarse it may well never get back on coarse. Maybe it is tie to lock this thread.
As does any other thread they infest. It is best to ignore them completely and let them play with each other until they become bored.Perhaps the pair of you would like to try and get us back on track?
Perhaps someone would like to explain the logic of more guns saving lives? Making USA a safer place?
Logically less guns = more safety.When you are a puppet for the trade organization that profits from the manufacture and sale of firearms it makes perfect sense. The gun and ammo manufacturers have their organization, the NRA, whipped into a frenzy and their zealots do their bidding for them.
Between topper and spoon this thread has gone so far off coarse it may well never get back on coarse. Maybe it is tie to lock this thread.
As does any other thread they infest. It is best to ignore them completely and let them play with each other until they become bored.Perhaps the pair of you would like to try and get us back on track?
Perhaps someone would like to explain the logic of more guns saving lives? Making USA a safer place?
Logically less guns = more safety.Rene, bringing logic into it, less guns=more safety does not tell the entire story. If there were no guns at all, yes, we might be more safe overall, yet, people on the gun control side fail to realize that the less guns concept only can apply to the law abiding (i.e. the people that don't commit murders, don't intend to commit violence, and are owning them for a variety of lawful reasons). Criminals will never obey laws, by mere definition they won't, and there is no way that a government can take away guns from them because they are untraceable until a crime is committed with them. Even forcing registration on America will only result in law abiding gun owners registering them, yet there still will be guns in criminal hands that can be used in a violent manner. I've mentioned this book multiple times, each time resulting in rants from the trolls here, but we know you are truly trying to understand the logic behind what we are saying so I invite you Rene to buy, or borrow a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" by Professor John Lott and see for yourself why he came to that conclusion and the evidence he uses to back up his statement. The Trolls would rather criticize rather than read the book. Ms. Poke-a-Honda, I would love to hear your version of the Constitution because you seem to be very hell bent that we are reading it wrong!
The problem with gun laws is that they only affect law abiding citizens. In the event of a total ban, only the law abiding would turn them in, the criminals don't care about laws anyway. The biggest mass murder in my lifetime by someone in US was committed with fertalizer, fuel, and a box truch, none of which have been banned. There were 168 people killed, 23 of them preschool children. I felt the concussion ten miles away, some of my neighbors who were only four miles away had windows broken by the blast. The Second Amendment is important because it helps protect the others. Throughout history, dictators like Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, and Stalin disarmed their citizens when they were popularly elected then changed once they had the absolute power and citizens defenseless. People in other countries may be happy with the government controlling their lives, they are more than welcome staying there. Gun ownership is part of our heritage and we will work to keep it that way.
Clearly, as all you of make evident, all guns will never be banned in the U.S. You are being extremely paranoid to think otherwise. And your argument that it is "a slippery slope" by limiting access to certain guns and ammunition is a specious argument. It's a panic inducing, fear tactic that is always used by the right. No, accept the military and swat teams need magazine that can fire 100 rounds in seconds. How many dear and home invaders are you taking out? It's common sense. Have a revolver or pistol for your own protection if you want. But allowing citizens to by any number of guns without a limit, as they do in some states is not in the public interest for anyone. Even Dirty Harry didn't need an extended magazine, and Buford Pusser, a baseball bat. So try and stay calm. It seems that you want only one side of an argument here. And that is fascist.
Clearly, as all you of make evident, all guns will never be banned in the U.S. You are being extremely paranoid to think otherwise. And your argument that it is "a slippery slope" by limiting access to certain guns and ammunition is a specious argument. It's a panic inducing, fear tactic that is always used by the right. No, accept the military and swat teams need magazine that can fire 100 rounds in seconds. How many dear and home invaders are you taking out? It's common sense. Have a revolver or pistol for your own protection if you want. But allowing citizens to by any number of guns without a limit, as they do in some states is not in the public interest for anyone. Even Dirty Harry didn't need an extended magazine, and Buford Pusser, a baseball bat. So try and stay calm. It seems that you want only one side of an argument here. And that is fascist.
Soupie, I have chosen to respond to this post of yours as it is back into the debate and it contains comments that are also something that many people here believe too. Even though once again, it's missing facts. Everyone has an opinion as we have established, and if everyone had the same opinion it would not be a debate, it would be a discussion. Either one is fine in a forum btw. But regarding this post, the term "Shall Not Be Infringed" is pretty clear yet you and many who agree with you fail to prove to us that if they limit our access to guns that THEY see fit to limit, why would you honestly believe that they wouldn't go further? Especially when there are people in power who have actually proven their intent by introducing legislation to ban all guns, Yes ALL, limit gun ownership to only military and police, and introduce outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment! When it comes to political action in any country, it's not about what we think will pass or fail, it's about dealing with the intent of the people making the laws! BTW, in a recent post you said that you have no intention on taking guns away from American citizens yet you state in this one that you also believe that " no one accept military and swat teams need magazines that can fire 100 rounds in seconds." Then you ask how many "Dear" and home invaders are you taking out? Once again, you missed the point that we have made on why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution which we have made multiple times. And you probably didn't even read my post about the analogy between firearms and fire suppression equipment. Btw, you also have stated incorrect information because a magazine has no capabilities of firing 100 rounds per second and at this time, firearms that fire 100 rounds per second are already limited to military and swat teams.
As for intent let me make another analogy! If you are in a convenience store minding your own business, and a masked guy comes in brandishing a gun, and points it at the clerk and you demanding money, at that very point in time, do you know for sure that he is just there to take your money? Or has he also "Implied" that he intends to do more harm as he has a loaded gun pointed in your face? Can anyone know for sure what will be his next step? Of course not, but he sure has implied that he is capable and intent on doing harm right? The Left's response: Give him what he wants and he will go away! Proper response: "This guy has implied that he intends on doing harm to us, we have a right to respond with whatever means are necessary to stop the attack because the police are not going to be here in time"
Actually, very logical. Since I believe that you are some tea party hillbilly with few natural teeth and a great desire to kill with guns, and you think that I'm some crazy liberal with an agenda. So get back to shunning please!
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!