If 90% of the people want background checks then ... [W:486]

[Bonzai]

Because it was in reply to a simple request for you to provide an argument against guns.:doh

Since guns per capita in the US is on the level of such 3rd world raw sewage ponds as Yemen, maybe they can offer their insight.................

 

[Linc]

I see Michigan is following your state's lead in probing female inner parts, 2m.

Denigrating and ridiculing your interlocutor is certainly a common debating tactic, and you resorted to it. Just don't complain when you get called on your tactics.

 

[Jerry]

No, as I said, it's a bad analogy because the sole PURPOSE of guns is to kill whereas cars have a benign purpose.

You are aware that "killing" means "legal death", right?

Yes, I agree, guns are for legally killing people, game and critters.

That's not a bad thing. That's a very good thing.

 

[Jack Hays]

Since guns per capita in the US is on the level of such 3rd world raw sewage ponds as Yemen, maybe they can offer their insight.................

Not really on point, Bonz. :roll:

 

[Dezaad]

How is asking someone if they're kidding when they imply there is no reason to oppose guns disrespecting them? Now, I'd say saying things like, "Who let her out in the evening?" and "I'd chuckle if I saw you being anally raped" (two charming conservatives here) is disrespect. But with Newtown, Ct., less than two months old, you think "You're kidding, right?" is disrespecting someone who needs to ask why anyone opposes the amount of guns we've got loose in our society?

Okay. If you say so.

You act like you REALLY REALLY REALLY care about people losing their lives. Errr, at least regarding gun violence taking their lives. Do you histrionically consider it just as tragic when people lose their lives in other supposedly preventable ways? Or do you pretty much just ignore those deaths unless they are somehow dramatic enough for a fantastic and entertaining evening news story? If you don't argue just as hard to prevent those deaths, then you are being logically inconsistent.

I am really tired of people getting all wound up about Newtown CT, but not about other, equally tragic, deaths. Seems like those people are just being manipulated so that networks can sell advertising. Err, it doesn't seem like it. They ARE being manipulated, actually.

Every shooting is being reported in detail now, and that fact is making you tune in. And believe me that the networks are making more money as a result and the advertisers are too.

I am sorry if I don't think these deaths are any more tragic than the other tens of thousands of senseless deaths we have in this country every year. The ONLY reason that seems cold to you is because you have bought into the drama.

 

[Federalist]

I've already said, many times, I'd have no problem limiting personal gun ownership to muskets.

So am I understanding you correctly that you are proposing federal legislation that would deny the people of the states the ability to acquire, keep, and bear arms other than muskets? Do you believe that congress has the authority to enact such legislation?

 

[Bonzai]

Not really on point, Bonz. :roll:

The subject I believe is "guns", not "Pile on Danbury"....................

 

[BretJ]

You act like you REALLY REALLY REALLY care about people losing their lives. Errr, at least regarding gun violence taking their lives. Do you histrionically consider it just as tragic when people lose their lives in other supposedly preventable ways? Or do you pretty much just ignore those deaths unless they are somehow dramatic enough for a fantastic and entertaining evening news story? If you don't argue just as hard to prevent those deaths, then you are being logically inconsistent.

I am really tired of people getting all wound up about Newtown CT, but not about other, equally tragic, deaths. Seems like those people are just being manipulated so that networks can sell advertising. Err, it doesn't seem like it. They ARE being manipulated, actually.

Every shooting is being reported in detail now, and that fact is making you tune in. And believe me that the networks are making more money as a result and the advertisers are too.

I am sorry if I don't think these deaths are any more tragic than the other tens of thousands of senseless deaths we have in this country every year. The ONLY reason that seems cold to you is because you have bought into the drama.

*Polite golf clap* Well said. Harrumph

 

[bubbabgone]

The subject I believe is "guns", not "Pile on Danbury"....................

Hey! I tried to appeal to her soft inner nutball self with that YOUTUBE clip ... don't I get points for that?

 

[Jack Hays]

I see Michigan is following your state's lead in probing female inner parts, 2m.

Obviously another ex-POLITICO refugee, so welcome. I don't know what Michigan has done, but in Virginia the probe was dropped from the bill. Ultrasound remains.:2wave:

 

[BretJ]

The subject I believe is "guns", not "Pile on Danbury"....................

Actually, I think it is....:lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

The subject I believe is "guns", not "Pile on Danbury"....................

Which is why I was pointing Danbury back in the direction of the topic.

 

[BretJ]

You act like you REALLY REALLY REALLY care about people losing their lives. Errr, at least regarding gun violence taking their lives. Do you histrionically consider it just as tragic when people lose their lives in other supposedly preventable ways? Or do you pretty much just ignore those deaths unless they are somehow dramatic enough for a fantastic and entertaining evening news story? If you don't argue just as hard to prevent those deaths, then you are being logically inconsistent.

I am really tired of people getting all wound up about Newtown CT, but not about other, equally tragic, deaths. Seems like those people are just being manipulated so that networks can sell advertising. Err, it doesn't seem like it. They ARE being manipulated, actually.

Every shooting is being reported in detail now, and that fact is making you tune in. And believe me that the networks are making more money as a result and the advertisers are too.

I am sorry if I don't think these deaths are any more tragic than the other tens of thousands of senseless deaths we have in this country every year. The ONLY reason that seems cold to you is because you have bought into the drama.

Can I get a Harumph for this man?!!??

 

[Jerry]

I've already said, many times, I'd have no problem limiting personal gun ownership to muskets.

Well, I do. Which one of us is going to get their way? I have a gun, you do not. Good luck :2wave:

 

[CanadaJohn]

This may sound like a stupid question, but I have to ask it.

Since I've started visiting this site, I've noticed there are so many people who are passionate on both sides of the gun ownership/possession debate. I don't have the same personal experience with guns so I don't understand the passion, but I do understand about being passionate about something.

That said, since you are so passionate about your right to legal and responsible, ownership and use of guns, why don't you feel the same passion about doing all you can to ensure those who misuse that right don't denigrade your ownership/use?

 

[Danbury]

Denigrating and ridiculing your interlocutor is certainly a common debating tactic, and you resorted to it. Just don't complain when you get called on your tactics.

Well ,I think I will disregard your declaration that you will decide the meaning, intent and tone of another's comment. I could tell you you got it wrong, but I gather you'd just dismiss it since you know what I meant better than I do.

However, your double standards ARE duly noted.

 

[Bonzai]

Hey! I tried to appeal to her soft inner nutball self with that YOUTUBE clip ... don't I get points for that?

Well, the pile on is unnecessary as the type of stringent gun control she advocates is unthinkable and unenforceable here. I think you cons and cryptocons just like to keep pretending there's some sort of conspiracy to disarm America................

 

[Federalist]

That said, since you are so passionate about your right to legal and responsible, ownership and use of guns, why don't you feel the same passion about doing all you can to ensure those who misuse that right don't denigrade your ownership/use?

I do feel the same passion.

 

[bubbabgone]

Well ,I think I will disregard your declaration that you will decide the meaning, intent and tone of another's comment. I could tell you you got it wrong, but I gather you'd just dismiss it since you know what I meant better than I do.

However, your double standards ARE duly noted.

hee hee

 

[Danbury]

So am I understanding you correctly that you are proposing federal legislation that would deny the people of the states the ability to acquire, keep, and bear arms other than muskets? Do you believe that congress has the authority to enact such legislation?

That is up to the SC to decide.

Do you think people should be allowed to have, say, ground-air missiles? You don't see potential problems with that, only that 'freedom' matters more?

I'm not proposing anything.

 

[Harshaw]

Well, the pile on is unnecessary as the type of stringent gun control she advocates is unthinkable and unenforceable here.

She's the one who's been making a spectacle of herself. :shrug:

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, I do. Which one of us is going to get their way? I have a gun, you do not. Good luck :2wave:

In my much younger days, during a desert survival training segment, the instructor posed a question to the students. "We're lost in the desert. We have a pistol and a canteen of water. Which do you want?" A student quickly replied, "The canteen, of course." The instructor rolled his eyes and answered, "No. I want the pistol. Then I'll have the pistol and the canteen." :doh

 

[Jerry]

Why don't you feel the same passion about doing all you can to ensure those who misuse that right don't denigrade your ownership/use?

Are you saying I don't?

My ideas for solving the problem:

• Initiate a national "Broken Windows Theory" campaign; a program which worked miracles in NY.
• Remove programs which brake up households.
• Re-stigmatize pregnancy outside of marriage.
• Require homes which house someone with mental health problems to temporally disarm until the person is cleared by their doctor or leaves the home.
• Pass Federal Castle Doctrine eliminating 90% of all gun free zones, allowing anyone who can legally carry a gun a t all, to carry wherever that person has a legal right to be, such as to work, to collage, to their children's school, to a theater, or to the mall; and exempting them and the property owner from all liability if a shooting is otherwise lawful.

I've been expressing that since Fast and Furious, the CO shooting and the OR shooting. Where the **** have you been to come here and say I have no ****ing passion?

These gun control nuts aren't interested in real solutions, they're interested in disarming the public.

 

[Danbury]

Once again. Guns have a benign purpose as well. Killing is benign for everyone but the assailant.

No, they don't. that is the point.

 

[Harshaw]

That is up to the SC to decide.

Sadly for your plans, it's already been decided.

I'm not proposing anything.

Indeed, that would take intellectual courage of a type you have not demonstrated. You're just trolling.