- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Messages
- 34,703
- Reaction score
- 12,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
'Not letting"? And I don't care about other countries. America first.
And if proper safety protocol was in place shooter would not have found a back door unlocked like the other door he tried.Yep, America First… ranked in the world in school shootings.
Considering 3-D printers can make a working gun, I'd not throw stones about ridiculous postings.How many kids can a person kill very quickly with a 3D printer?
And why do you always make a series of totally ridiculous comments after every mass shooting?
Banning tactical gear doesn't infringe...so...'Not letting"? And I don't care about other countries. America first.
And if proper safety protocol was in place shooter would not have found a back door unlocked like the other door he tried.
Per the article you just posted, it was an AR-15, not an assault rifle.
And you probably think that was a witty comeback. (It wasn't).Tell it to a couple of dozen of dead children.
As to 3D printers, they're expensive
How many kids can a person kill very quickly with a 3D printer?
And why do you always make a series of totally ridiculous comments after every mass shooting?
How many mass shooters have used a 3D printed gun?You think someone who is expecting to die or go to prison for live after a mass shooting is going to care about his credit card bill?
Some kids were so unidentifiable that they had to ask parents for their DNA to identify them.At least 19 children, 2 adults killed after shooter opens fire at Texas elementary school
The shooter is also dead, and is believed to have been killed by responding law enforcement officers.www.cbsnews.com
An assault rifle and high capacity magazines. Weapon and ammo meant for one primary purpose—to kill lots of human beings in a very quick and efficient manner. Gee, where have we heard this story before.
How many mass shooters have used a 3D printed gun?
Again, it's reality. You can throw around all the arguments from emotion that you want to. At the end of the day, you are restricted by the constitution from infringing on peoples rights. You will need to pass an amendment in order to do what you want. You have no chance of doing that though.
And if proper safety protocol was in place shooter would not have found a back door unlocked like the other door he tried.
And you probably think that was a witty comeback. (It wasn't).
Addressing an issue starts with honesty regarding what an issue is. A deeply disturbed person committed a horrific act.
Everyone knows to keep the doors locked. Just like at home, or the car etc.It's the schools fault!
Good argument for arming our LEO with armor piercing rounds.
Living like what? These types of shootings are extremely rare. They account for less than 1% of homicides. They are horribly tragic when they do happen, but proposing "solutions" that have no chance of passing, being constitutional, or are in any way effective is just stupid.How long do you think most American's will continue to tolerate living like this?
Living like what? These types of shootings are extremely rare. They account for less than 1% of homicides. They are horribly tragic when they do happen, but proposing "solutions" that have no chance of passing, being constitutional, or are in any way effective is just stupid.
Why does it need repealed? We've established already that a manufacturer is in no way liable for the criminal misuse of their product. This applies to firearms, hammers, soft ball bats and every other product made.Is repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act unconstitutional?
Why does it need repealed? We've established already that a manufacturer is in no way liable for the criminal misuse of their product. This applies to firearms, hammers, soft ball bats and every other product made.
There is objectively zero liability for the criminal misuse of a product. I understand that you have no actual valid argument, so you need to throw out red herrings and invalid comparisons, but it doesn't change the facts.Let a jury decide just like the tobacco industry faced...
You are projecting. They have zero liability. You are wanting nuisance lawsuits as a way to punish manufacturers. There have no liability.You seem awfully afraid to have these manufacturers face a jury...
We know it won't hold up, objectively. There is no legal liability for the criminal misuse of a product. You can stomp your feet until you have blisters, but that won't change.Afraid your "not liable" will not hold up?
Its worth the risk to drop the shooter before he mows down kidsLiving like what? These types of shootings are extremely rare. They account for less than 1% of homicides. They are horribly tragic when they do happen, but proposing "solutions" that have no chance of passing, being constitutional, or are in any way effective is just stupid.