- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 11,963
- Reaction score
- 3,543
- Location
- Naperville, IL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, you're largely unemployed, not looking for a job, and waiting for a handout.
Where was soccerboy blaming Limbaugh, Palin, and the right?
The mayors, police chiefs, and state and federal peace officers all have jobs.
The law makers wanting to have this discussion all have jobs.
The middle class families concerned about excess illegal weapons filtering into their states and communities, we all have jobs, homes, cars.
Your comment implies that only out of work dead beats want to talk about public safety -- that's a pretty ignorant statement.
I think that even conservatives, and members of the NRA can agree with you if you are truly talking about Excess Illegal weapons. However, your approach is to limit the legal ownership of weapons which does no good to that which you speak.
Hey, the Democrats and media started this bigtime. This tragedy didn't have to devolve into any of this. Like most conservatives, I'm about as pissed off over these last few days of idiocy as I've been in a long, long time.
The sheriff, Krugman, CNN, Meet the Press, Olbermann, and the vast majority of elected Democrats started banging this drum minutes after it happened, and now it is THEY who are obligated to tone it down. Not us.
Massive damage has been done to the Democratic party over this. People, like me, are in disbelief. Not even I thought it could go this low, and I have no faith whatsoever in the intentions of today's elected Democrats or what they say.
That wound't be my approach at all.
Legal ownership stimulates the economy and hurts no one, as most of those guns ever leave the closet.
So then maybe you could articulate for us just exactly what is accomplished by legislating ever more laws that are redundant.
The mayors, police chiefs, and state and federal peace officers all have jobs.
The law makers wanting to have this discussion all have jobs.
The middle class families concerned about excess illegal weapons filtering into their states and communities, we all have jobs, homes, cars.
Your comment implies that only out of work dead beats want to talk about public safety -- that's a pretty ignorant statement.
That wound't be my approach at all.
Legal ownership stimulates the economy and hurts no one, as most of those guns ever leave the closet.
Strawman, try again.
No, it is not a strawman, I haven't said one way or another. I simply asked you a question. Can I assume that you are going to dodge it?
j-mac
It assumes that somoen is looking to enact redundent laws, and that this is the issue before. By phrasing it the way you do, you set up something easy to beat as no one is for rundancy. Instead, a better question would be what make a specific law, name you law, more effective, or what would it do, or why is needed? Notice no easy to jump on language.
Just trying to help. :coffeepap
Are you in agreement with hazel on this?
j-mac
Agree to what? If you mean, do I agree your question is a strawman, yes. I would ask for a better question myself.
I don't think it really is a strawman. Hazel made reference to Anti Gun nuts as being reasonable, their position often refers to more restrictions on lawful gun ownership. When I questioned him on what he meant by his answer on restricting "Illegal Weapons" with more laws, that target these leagal gun owners I get little more than it's a straw argument...BS. Yours and his obfuscation of the obvious is little more than distraction so that the answer never comes.
j-mac
But, you throw up the redundancy language, and he says nothing about wanting redundancy. This is what makes it a strawman. You throw in redundancy because it is easy to beat a redunacy request. No one is arguing for redundancy. That is your imposed strawman.
And j, seriously, you do see anything that doesn't fit your predisposition as being obfuscation. Often, people try to explain their position to you, and instead of examining what is said, you leap elsewhere.
I'm not defending anyone here, merely pointing out that your question is a strawman. There's no way around it. No one has stated they want redundancy.
With terms like "liberal horde" you have really impressed me as a real fence mender. I can feel the love.
Do you believe more gun laws are needed, or an answer to what happened?
j-mac
It assumes that somoen is looking to enact redundent laws, and that this is the issue before.
By phrasing it the way you do, you set up something easy to beat as no one is for rundancy.
Instead, a better question would be what make a specific law, name you law, more effective, or what would it do, or why is needed?
Notice no easy to jump on language.
Just trying to help.
The Sherif is a leftie?
The seven-term sheriff and Bisbee native is well known in Arizona for speaking his mind and has established himself as one of the leading liberal voices in a state that boasts only a handful.
"he did not watch tv. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."
zach osler,
jared loughner's best friend
I can sum that statement up in 2 words...
GAME OVER!
...
Longtime Friend Zach Olser = Game Over???
:2funny::2funny:
Are you far-righties so blind that you can't see how meaningless the FNC web story is??
Seriously?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?