I can drive to work and back in a lifeless VW. I choose, as personal preference for what I can afford, the 2002 Trans Am WS6. I don't need 340 HP to go to work and back. I can do that with a 40 HP VW if I wanted.
Who the are you to tell someone what they should and should not have?
You're just a ing authoritarian. Aren't you?
this indignant thing is cute.
You cannot have grenades or submachineguns either. You cannot take the M-60 to the range. You cannot make bombs to stop intruders.
Enforcement of regulation is by definition authoritarian and in cases of weapons there are a whole slew of examples. You seem to have a very naive concept of government.
But you, my Fuzzy Troll, want to go above and beyond what is reasonable.
"beyond what is reasonable"
while what is "reasonable" for you is 300M+ guns and weak gun regulations poorly enforced.
You are welcome to say what you find reasonable. Neither of us speaks for anyone else. Your opinion that it's unreasonable is just as valid my contention that a ban of weapon types is reasonable.
You can act indignant and I will talk about gun policies and the efficacy of them in countries similar to our own like our NATO allies.
Really at the end of the day, in a realistic discussion of policy, there is zero merit in arguing that even this conservative SCOTUS would say any weapon control is unreasonable. Scalia is not exactly a constructionist and his take on the 1994 ban is already law. At that point it comes down to will of the people.
At that point you discuss the electorate. It's changing as evidenced by the black man in office right now. , he was re-elected despite a stagnant economy and historically poor unemployment. It's why I laugh at comments about "America will never" this or that.
It's not 1982 anymore.
This is where I differ with most liberals. They like you seem to be working of off the assumption that police in and of themselves are enough of a deterrence.
They/you should have to apologize to all the people who have been and are subject to damage that couldve been prevented or lessened had you not fear mongered/brainwashed/neutered them into not carrying a self-defense weapon. For you though, only the other side has to apologize.
You are changing the goal posts. This is not about people with automatic rifles. It is completely irrelevant my point/story.
And your point about calling the cops has been proven to be hollow. Cops are not a suffient detterence. The fact that you think they do tells me that you live in fantasy/MSNBC land. There are plenty of situations on record where self defense by firearm has been necessary. I read about them, but the mainstream media does not give them enough if any air ttime because they don't jive with their agenda. Wait, never mind, you will give them circulation if it happens to be a white guy shooting a black guy in self defense cause then you can spin it into a "hate" crime, and we know how much liberals love the race card.
Last edited by mingus; 12-28-2012 at 06:45 AM.
Police will seldom respond until a crime is actually committed, or unless you are connected.
Wait, and it is often too late.
Shastafarian must have a thing for watching his loved ones getting ed. Is Shastafarian Blake's troll?
Maybe he's FuzzyChump?
I think regulating weapons misses the point. In most if not all of these cases of mass killings, early warning signs are there. I think that if you are housing one of these mentally unstable people and you fail to keep your guns on lock down so that they aren't accessible to these people, you shouldn't be let off the hook so easy. That's just as much of a problem IMO.
if my life was endangered i'd rather hope the batman would show up at the scene and rescue my ass rather than count on the cops to save me, they'll arrive but not before the crime is done and criminals gone. its your choice whether to keep some guns at home or in your car to ensure your own security or count on the police to protect your family and properties, but you don't have the right to make the choice for other people imho.
Armed teachers should be flashing guns at bullies imo, seems pretty effective.
LOL...
Relying on someone else...
Typical liberal.
Why not do what you can to rely on yourself?
because im afraid the liberals would've taken my guns away from my hands and i ain't gonna fight fully armed thugs with my bare hands tbh
Lol fear mongering.
That's the job you and the NRA are doing.
Call it what you want. The Feinstein bill is DOA. No way that passes.
Maybe it's the liberal pussy in me or maybe it's these FACTS about gun ownership
• Unintentional firearm death disproportionately affects children, with 16% of the
unintentional deaths occurring among youth under age 20.3
• Unintentional gun injuries account for 14% of all firearm deaths under age 15.3
• A gun in the home is a risk factor for household members to be shot fatally in their home.
• The risk of being killed appears particularly high among women, which reflects the increased
likelihood for a woman to be killed by her spouse, partner or family member rather than a
stranger
• People with a family member who has purchased a handgun are at increased risk of being
shot and killed
• Owning a gun may moderately increase the likelihood of fatally shooting another person
• On the whole, carrying a firearm does not guarantee protection and may increase injury
risk.**While individual cir stances vary, persons should take this into account this when
making decisions about firearm possession. Considering safety plans that provide alternatives
to firearms may be in order for individuals with minimal firearms experience.
I'll wait here for "those people don't know how to handle or hide their guns. Not our problem."
OK...
16% unintended deaths in children under 20.3 years old... Seriously... 0.3 tears?
Calling a child one that is 20? How do they feel about it?
How many of these are teens exploring guns because they have pussy parents who are afraid to properly teach them?
unintended deaths of 14% of those under 15.3 years are unintentional... Again... point three years... AND--- That means 86% of death under 15.3 years are intentional...
How many teens are buying firearms legally, and do you think it will stop by adding more laws on the books...
Have you ever listened to yourself?
not a very godly or intelligent post.
No I'm just smart enough to realize flashing a gun at people is pretty stupid. Unless that gun happens to be a rocket launcher.
Yes you can.
You cannot have grenades or submachineguns either.
Yes you canYou cannot take the M-60 to the range.
Yes you can.You cannot make bombs to stop intruders.
You just aren't aware of the regulations, obviously. Stop talking.Enforcement of regulation is by definition authoritarian and in cases of weapons there are a whole slew of examples. You seem to have a very naive concept of government.
Actually, rocket launchers make terrible self defense weapons.
This is one of the stupidest posts ever on this forum.
Of course owning a gun increases the likelihood of shooting someone. The likelihood of shooting someone when you don't have a gun is nil.
The other points are just as stupid.
Wanna bet?You cannot make bombs to stop intruders.
You can make it from your own pee and vasoline...
The Army's TM, Field Expedient Explosives is rather thorough. They stopped printing it long ago, and tried to take all copies of it out of circulation. An Army buddy of mine had it. I was amazed at the simple recipes in it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote