Liberal gun bullshit

Dixie said:
Here's a 'compromise' for ya... First we remove all the laws prohibiting involuntary commitment, so that whenever a person is mentally disturbed, their family can have them put in a mental hospital away from the public. THEN, if they opt to NOT do this, and instead choose to care for them in their homes, it can only be under the conditions no firearms are in the house. If the people make this decision and are willing to sacrifice their right to bear arms, that's up to them. See, I can be perfectly reasonable!
Click to expand...


Once again, compromise to a gun nut is: he doesn't have to change anything and everyone else must do the compromising.
 
Bfgrn said:
But God forbid we pass laws prohibiting criminals from purchasing firearms at a gun show in most states without a Brady criminal background check.
Click to expand...

What do you think goes on at a gun show? It's dealer, who are required by law, to do a 4473 for everything they sell from company inventory. If someone engages in a private sale, it's no different than if they did it in the parking lot of Wal-Mart of a VFW.
 
Sparta said:
I'm not quite getting what you're saying, so if my response doesn't answer your question, could you phrase it different?

Bullets are lead cored with a copper jacket. They're not magnetic, and you'd need a hell of a charge to counter act 20,000+psi that occurs when a gun is shot. Plus having a bullet go in a direct you do not intend doesn't make for the safest set of circumstances.
Click to expand...

No, this is good.

Look, as I've said. I am just spit balling here. I am not talking about altering the course by 90 degrees or anything so severe. And I am sorry, but a bullet pulled off course and flying in a direction the shooter did not intend is still better in my book than having it reach the shooter's intended target.
 
Dixie said:
Most any gun show is bound by whatever background check laws are in the state, and the dealers can be put out of business if they don't comply. STILL.... Adam Lanza was not a legal gun owner who purchased a firearm at a gun show after a background check, so it wouldn't matter anyway.

We have laws prohibiting involuntary commitment because liberals thought it unfair to lock people away who they claimed were not a threat to society. But just like virtually EVERYTHING a pinhead liberal ever advocates, we see the consequences and results of your stupidity after it is too late. You now want to stand around with your hands in your pocket and say, "Well, we didn't know... but STILL, it's not faaaaair!"

It's not fair to punish law-abiding and legal gun owners for the actions of a crazy person! It's not fair to restrict my constitutional rights because of the irresponsibility of someone else!
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that the very people who claim they stand for less government intervention, individual liberty, are so quick to advocate MORE government intervention, and taking away someone ELSE'S individual liberty. When conservatives talk about 'individual' liberty, they really mean 'ME' liberty and fuck you.

Did you read the written testimony of the ACLU in the SB 452 case?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/JUDdata/Tmy/2012SB-00452-R000329-David%20McGuire-%20ACLU-TMY.PDF
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And I am sorry, but a bullet pulled off course and flying in a direction the shooter did not intend is still better in my book than having it reach the shooter's intended target.
Click to expand...

Not if you're trying to shoot the invader (of the school). Now, I'm not an expert in what mass killers are trying to do, but it seems to me they aren't aiming carefully, so throwing their bullets off course wouldn't seem to be of great value to me.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, this is good.

Look, as I've said. I am just spit balling here. I am not talking about altering the course by 90 degrees or anything so severe. And I am sorry, but a bullet pulled off course and flying in a direction the shooter did not intend is still better in my book than having it reach the shooter's intended target.
Click to expand...

Don't think.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, this is good.

Look, as I've said. I am just spit balling here. I am not talking about altering the course by 90 degrees or anything so severe. And I am sorry, but a bullet pulled off course and flying in a direction the shooter did not intend is still better in my book than having it reach the shooter's intended target.
Click to expand...
You're still on this stupid science fiction shit? Get real.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, this is good.

Look, as I've said. I am just spit balling here. I am not talking about altering the course by 90 degrees or anything so severe. And I am sorry, but a bullet pulled off course and flying in a direction the shooter did not intend is still better in my book than having it reach the shooter's intended target.
Click to expand...

Yes, better that it should hit some innocent person. This idiotic comment is now the king of internet stupidity.
 
Zap Ass hasn't thought this through. He must think lead and copper are magnetic. In order to deflect even an iron bullet a micron there would have to be huge electo-magnets hovering right over the path of it. Does he know how much those things cost, weigh, and how much electricity they use? Who the fuck is going to sit under that thing? What a fucking bone head. Obviously he skipped science class in high school or was smoking a bong before it.
 
Superfreak said:
what is to stop a person from having multiple weapons? Also, as stated many times in the various threads... you are talking about a few seconds at most to change a clip. I don't see how that is going to help.
Click to expand...

Just an FYI because this is a common mistake.

Clip - Something used to load a magazine with multiple rounds at once.
Magazine - Holds and feeds rounds to the weapon.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No, this is good.

Look, as I've said. I am just spit balling here. I am not talking about altering the course by 90 degrees or anything so severe. And I am sorry, but a bullet pulled off course and flying in a direction the shooter did not intend is still better in my book than having it reach the shooter's intended target.
Click to expand...
by this logic then, people shouldn't be bothered by innocent bystanders being killed, right?
 
DamnYankee said:
You're still on this stupid science fiction shit? Get real.
Click to expand...


And this is the response Liberals get when they attempt honest debate with hateful Righties.


I try and offer suggestions to help move the discussion forward and above you will find the best response STY has got.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And this is the response Liberals get when they attempt honest debate with hateful Righties.


I try and offer suggestions to help move the discussion forward and above you will find the best response STY has got.
Click to expand...
zappa, with all due respect, high powered magnets in ceilings is not honest debate to people who understand the laws of physics.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
zappa, with all due respect, high powered magnets in ceilings is not honest debate to people who understand the laws of physics.
Click to expand...


"With all due respect..."

Whatever.

You absolutely refuse to discuss banning any guns...I made an honest attempt to come up with some alternatives and got the same standard derision.

I don't know the precise numbers involved in the operation of a gun. That's why I asked.

I honestly expected some rational responses, but all I got was the same tired nonsense that passes for "debate" here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top