Reply With Quote
I would argue that nuke tech is expensive and sophisticated and difficult enough. The United Nations is a crony organization that isn't interested in squashing rogue nations.
Explain
I would argue that nuke tech is expensive and sophisticated and difficult enough. The United Nations is a crony organization that isn't interested in squashing rogue nations.
Do you understand what the word eventually means
Your knowledge on the subject is clearly limited.
STFU, or make a point if you actually have one.
Not bothered. Race trolls are a dime a dozen.
My point is that you're an illiterate re
Nobody is arguing against your argument.
You have no point. STFU X 2.
Your point is .
Do you know what the word eventually means? Who even asks that when the word wasn't used; not that everyone doesn't know what the word is, anyways.
STFU X 3.
another SAWM shooting again. this time not too far from SA, again, in floresville.
Blake
Eventually has come, one would would have inferred. , you're a moron!
Trill and his fake news...sad. Again.
how is it fake news when it was a real report? and what do you mean by "again"? you on that black tar again jack?
You're the one who wants them priced out of reach for common folks. You need to define what the you're talking about else you're just saying "there are problems, they need to be fixed... by making everything too expensive so only wealthy people can afford to kill a lot of people".
You seriously asking that?
Nope. That's not how any of this works. It's an NRA shill tactic to bog the discussion down in the minute and semantic specifics of any proposal. Public pressure towards legislative action does not depend on every specific detail being hashed out. I don't need to have a new redistricted map of Texas to say that the current districting is highly gerrymandered and needs to be changed.
I welcome your suggestions, as the resident gun expert, on which specific guns or accessories it might make sense for us to limit or halt production on, based on the ease with which one may use them to carry out mass murder. My guess is you're not interested in having that discussion because you've been trained to resist any changes that might affect gun sales.
The premise is that if the mass-killing weapons (however we decide to define them) are concentrated with the wealthy collectors they are less likely to be used in crimes of passion or terrorism.else you're just saying "there are problems, they need to be fixed... by making everything too expensive so only wealthy people can afford to kill a lot of people".
So you can say that guns that can "mow down 100 people" should be priced out of reach, but you won't exactly define which guns, parts of guns or howitzers you're referring to? This is how placebo legistation gets introduced and passed, because those who are demanding something be done about it have zero idea if the new bill actually does anything meaningful.
If you want to make an impact, you have to start with guns currently in existence. That means confiscation, buy back, whatever. You have to outlaw the production of ammunition and outlaw the sale to civilians, people aren't going to all go out and buy reloaders. The 2nd has nothing to do with the 1st amendment and could easily be done. No one seems to think about that though because no liberal news media shows the 5K rounds of ammo the shooter was in possession of.
Trying to regulate the sale of existing firearms is a fruitless endeavor. You have to simply outlaw them. You cannot force the market to artificially inflate the price of something that the market is flooded with. The reason subguns are so expensive is that they are very limited in supply, no new ones are being made. Meanwhile every sporting goods store in the US has AR-15 type rifles and accessories. Every shooter and gun enthusiast has one or two of them tricked out already. The serious ones reload their own ammo.
You have to stop being a pussy about it and just go for the brass ring of a total ban on firearms and firearm production, full on home searches and confiscation after a brief amnesty period for owners to visit centers of gun buyback and gun receiving centers. Anything short of that will just fuel more gun purchases. I made a thread about it already. I'm sure you scoffed at it then though.
The fellow in Vegas was a wealthy collector. No transferable subgun has ever been used in a crime, much less a mass killing.
The premise is that if the mass-killing weapons (however we decide to define them) are concentrated with the wealthy collectors they are less likely to be used in crimes of passion or terrorism.
Your idea won't work. It involves too many leaps of magic to inflate prices and move firearms to the few wealthy people you think would want them. It has inherent, naive level flaws:
1. Once you make them illegal to own by "anyone" then you reduce the demand.
2. Once you reduce the demand you reduce the cost
3. Reducing the cost makes them just cheap guns, which they are basically.
Your idea ignores the market altogether. Who would sell the guns? Who would benefit from the sale?
It's an outright ban and confiscation and even that wouldn't show any positive trend in our lifetimes. Eventually it would curb gun related deaths, but probably not deaths overall.
Ban semi autos. It provides two things.
It eliminates fire arms that make mass murder easy and it neuters the NRA semantics argument that makes gun nuts feel special because they are in on the jargon. 90% of gun debates now devolve into that stupidity.
Sure the 2nd amendment will not allow the seizure of of owned weapons but it will get rid of new carbines that are doing the lionshare of these massacre. It will take decades for the issue to get better as guns are put out of service with no new ones to replace them. People will still have revolvers, pump actions, and such to protect themselves with.
banning will do no good now. how many semi-automatic surrogates, high-capacity MAGAzines are already in the hands of the less?
Nothing worse than conservative christians. some of the most demonic people on earth.
Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot
Hans Fiene, a Lutheran pastor who is also a regular contributor to the right-wing website The Federalist, has written a new column in which he explains that allowing 26 people to die at the hands of a crazed gunman at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, this weekend was actually God’s way of answering their prayers.
Fiene begins his column by attacking liberals who have mocked Republican politicians who only offer “thoughts and prayers” for shooting victims — and who don’t take any direct action that could prevent future shootings.
He then explains to liberals that it was part of God’s plan that over two dozen people would get shot up while in their own house of worship.
“It may seem, on the surface, that God was refusing to give such protection to his Texan children,” he writes. “But we are also praying that God would deliver us from evil eternally. Through these same words, we are asking God to deliver us out of this evil world and into his heavenly glory, where no violence, persecution, cruelty, or hatred will ever afflict us again.”
Fiene then says that, in order to fully defeat evil eternally, God has to let evil get some temporary victories, such as this weekend’s mass shooting.
“So when a madman with a rifle sought to persecute the faithful at First Baptist Church on Sunday morning, he failed,” Fiene says. “Just like those who put Christ to death, and just like those who have brought violence to believers in every generation, this man only succeeded in being the means through which God delivered his children from this evil world into an eternity of righteousness and peace.”
Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot
the pacification of SAWM's needs to end.
The gunman who killed more than two dozen people in a small church outside San Antonio on Sunday had a string of troubling episodes in recent years, including an escape from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base “attempting to carry out death threats” against military superiors, according to a police report.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
