Reply With Quote
Tax payer funds arm almost every thug on the street.
And Batman is black!
Tax payer funds arm almost every thug on the street.
Are you confirming your sexual orientation or just in love with MIG?
Well if this was a conspiracy and somehow "they" programmed the guy and went to all the trouble of setting this all up, I'm sure they would have covered the parts about "where did he get the money".
[emoticon] You still want to know!
lol obsessed
Deus ex Machina
not only that but the whole thing magically comes together perfectly
So logically speaking, someone with a crossbow can kill/injure 70 people in a similar manner as what happened the other night?
Doubtful.
Now they are reporting there was a mixup with the statement the mother of the shooter made:
In the statement read Monday by Damiani, Arlene Holmes clarified that she had been awoken by a reporter at 5:45 a.m. on Friday, and asked if she knew anything about a shooting in Aurora. Holmes said she did not, and Arlene Holmes said the reporter asked if she was Arlene Holmes and if her son was James Holmes.
In the written statement, Arlene Holmes says that is when she responded with, “Yes, you have the right person,” referring to herself. Arlene Holmes said the reporter asked for a comment about the shooting in Aurora, but that she could not comment until she knew learned more, and if the person involved was in fact her son.
this nig could
A Mexican in a pickup truck can kill 14.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/us/tex...html?hpt=hp_t3
Mexican are already banned. That's working great.
The school is keeping very tight lipped about this guy. CNN says that all students in this PhD program are monitored and when a student decides to apply for voluntary withdraw, there is a meeting set up with the student and staff, to discuss reasons for withdraw and an attempt to motivate the student to stay and finish the program.
The school isn't saying if they had a meeting with him or if he had any noticeable change in behavior (mental or physical).
nearly two dozen people were packed in one ford f250.
If the killer wouldn't have had a truck, his next step would have been to assault them with a swimming pool.
/slippery slope
So i asked the gun advocates what it would take to change your mind? What Facts would you need to see to convince you that banning semi-automatic weapons would be a good thing.
Also, someone said "Ban guns and they'll use crossbows etc."
No one is disputing individuals will still be able to kill. But you cant cause that type of mass death/injuries with a cross bow the way you can with semi-automatics.
The only thing comparable would be a bomb.
Bombs are illegal. Wonder why.
Nothing will change my mind because the Cons ution, historical trends, and failed attempts at federally banning other things all favor the idea that the right to bear arms is essential in a free society, tbh.....
/reductio ad absurdum
True, but that was an accident.
If someone was TRYING to kill 14, using a pickup truck would be extremely ineffective and impractical. Too many things have to go "right" for you to be successful. Mainly getting 14 people into the back of an uncovered vehicle.
You seem unable to comprehend that semi-automatic weapons make killing in masses EASY.
With guns, you dont need to get people to agree to get into your truck. You dont need any cooperation with any individual, actually. Just shoot em up.
So DMC, answer this question: SHOULD BOMBS BE LEGAL?
In fact, that question goes for all gun-advocates: Should bombs be legal?
What about grenades?
Missile launchers?
We don't have a Cons utional right to bombs, grenades, or missile launchers, tbh.... lame argument, next!
Too soon???
definition of arms: Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
Bazookas arent weapons and ammunition?
Ok...what about FULLY automatic machine guns? Should those be legal?
Id really like DMC, _Jag, ClipperNation, and anyone else against banning semi-automatics to answer this one:
Should bombs, portable missile launchers, fully automatic machine guns, armor piercing bullets etc etc be legal?
btw - the argument against gun restrictions wasnt about the cons ution, it was about "guns dont kill people....people kill people. If they dont have guns, they'll use something else...swords, knifes, cross-bows, bombs, swimming pools".
So dont go hiding behind the CONS UTION now.
The Second Amendment only en les us to firearms, this has been backed up by the Supreme Court....
What about fully automatic machine guns?
Armor piercing bullets?
Dont chicken out!!!
Answer the question!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
