the worst of liberalism

sky dancer said:
I didn't know your name was tabasco. I was told to use that name because you can't stand it. I was told you stalked my friend and sent creepy PM's.
Click to expand...

Well then, in the unlikely event that you're not Legion, you're apparently close friends with Legion, in which case you're still a worthless troll. Obvious troll is obvious.

But the fact of the matter is, you are Legion. You've displayed all the characteristics of Legion. I detected it very early on, but sought to give you the benefit of the doubt. As it would turn out, I am absolutely correct.

You mentioned that you will be leaving. I suggest you make haste on that... and don't bother coming back. The King of Gods will crush you again.
 
sky dancer said:
Twelve states allow citizens to shoot intruders in their homes, and 38 states permit concealed weapons in public places. Laws putting more judgment in an individual’s hands stem from people’s increased concern about crime in their communities.

That's citizens taking over the role of the police.
Click to expand...

no state has the authority to deny any person the right to use deadly force in defense of their life or property.
 
Bfgrn said:
A simple 'click' would answer your question, but I guess you need a 'nanny'

What The Act Does

o The Act makes it unlawful for a person to possess a large capacity ammunition magazine unless it was
lawfully possessed before the bill was enacted. It also prohibits the transfer or sale of large capacity
ammunition magazines.

o The Act defines large capacity ammunition magazines as those devices holding more than 10 rounds of
ammunition.

o The Act does not restrict in any way the sale or possession of conventional-sized ammunition magazines
used by sportsmen and other law-abiding firearms owners.

o The bill eliminates a problem of the lapsed federal ban, as it prevents sellers from circumventing the law by
stockpiling large capacity magazines, and then selling them after the ban takes effect.

o Leading experts on gun policy have concluded that banning high-capacity magazines is “a common-sense
policy change that is likely to generate modest but important benefits to society at a very small cost, and so is worth doing.”
Click to expand...

there is no such creature as common sense gun legislation
 
Bfgrn said:
A simple 'click' would answer your question, but I guess you need a 'nanny'

What The Act Does

o The Act makes it unlawful for a person to possess a large capacity ammunition magazine unless it was
lawfully possessed before the bill was enacted. It also prohibits the transfer or sale of large capacity
ammunition magazines.

o The Act defines large capacity ammunition magazines as those devices holding more than 10 rounds of
ammunition.

o The Act does not restrict in any way the sale or possession of conventional-sized ammunition magazines
used by sportsmen and other law-abiding firearms owners.

o The bill eliminates a problem of the lapsed federal ban, as it prevents sellers from circumventing the law by
stockpiling large capacity magazines, and then selling them after the ban takes effect.

o Leading experts on gun policy have concluded that banning high-capacity magazines is “a common-sense
policy change that is likely to generate modest but important benefits to society at a very small cost, and so is worth doing.”
Click to expand...

First of all, do you think a 10 round magazine is less deadly? Which of the shots that Loughner fired were the deadly ones? The first 3? The last 4?

Who are the "leading experts on gun policy" that made the conclusion that is not supported by the facts?

Since the lapse of the ban there has been no significant increase in gun crime. In fact, violent crime has gone down inmost places. If you look at the violent crime rates of the states that have less authoritarian gun laws, they are lower. And if you compare the states that have "shall issue" CCW laws from before to now, you will see a reduction in violent crime.

It is very easy to try and blame an inanimate object. But the crime rates do not support your claims. And the fact that ordinary citizens use privately owned firearms to protect themselves from violent criminals seems irrelevant to most anti-gun nuts.
 
sky dancer said:
Taking guns out of domestic violence homes prevents murder. King of Guns shouldn't own any.
Click to expand...

It also removes the ability of a smaller, weaker person to defend their life.

Cheap shots aside, most states have laws preventing people convicted of Domestic Violence from owning guns.
 
Canceled14 said:
When the household has domestic violence, guns are removed. If men want to keep their guns they need to stop threatening women and kids with them.
Click to expand...

first, this is irrelevant to my comment

second, the law you are referring to is so unconstitutionally vague that it should not only be null and void, but lautenberg should be chastised by all of congress for even thinking about it.

third, the law you are referring to is unconstitutional due to ex post facto as well as a violation of the 5th Amendment to the constitution.
 
WinterBorn said:
First of all, do you think a 10 round magazine is less deadly? Which of the shots that Loughner fired were the deadly ones? The first 3? The last 4?

Who are the "leading experts on gun policy" that made the conclusion that is not supported by the facts?

Since the lapse of the ban there has been no significant increase in gun crime. In fact, violent crime has gone down inmost places. If you look at the violent crime rates of the states that have less authoritarian gun laws, they are lower. And if you compare the states that have "shall issue" CCW laws from before to now, you will see a reduction in violent crime.

It is very easy to try and blame an inanimate object. But the crime rates do not support your claims. And the fact that ordinary citizens use privately owned firearms to protect themselves from violent criminals seems irrelevant to most anti-gun nuts.
Click to expand...

I am not against citizens having a gun for protection. But I can see why some people can become totally anti gun. It is because of people who make excuses for any possible restrictions.
 
Canceled14 said:
When the household has domestic violence, guns are removed. If men want to keep their guns they need to stop threatening women and kids with them.
Click to expand...

I misread this before. Most states have laws that prevent someone convicted of domestic violence from buying guns from a dealer. They may still own guns.
 
Canceled14 said:
Twelve states allow citizens to shoot intruders in their homes, and 38 states permit concealed weapons in public places. Laws putting more judgment in an individual’s hands stem from people’s increased concern about crime in their communities.

That's citizens taking over the role of the police.
Click to expand...

It isn't. It is recognizing the difference between proactive and reactive response. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
 
Bfgrn said:
I am not against citizens having a gun for protection. But I can see why some people can become totally anti gun. It is because of people who make excuses for any possible restrictions.
Click to expand...

Again, if you can show some real evidence that these new laws would make a difference, I might listen.

But the 2nd Amendment is rather clear: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
WinterBorn said:
Again, if you can show some real evidence that these new laws would make a difference, I might listen.

But the 2nd Amendment is rather clear: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

Just as I suspected...it is not about reasonable restrictions or common sense laws...it is the right wing paranoid slippery slope and their ONLY priorities...ME, MYSELF and I.

BTW, are you willfully lying or just ignorant? It sure looks like states with less gun control have more gun violence.

number-or-firearms-deaths-in-the-us.png

number-of-deaths-due-to-injury-by-firearms-us.jpg
 
King of Gods said:
Hey Legion, do you think anyone gives a fuck that I had a previous account called Tabasco? I have nothing to hide. If you think you're somehow blackmailing me, you're delusional.

Just the fact that you know of my previous identity is creepy as fuck, though, considering I never mentioned it on the forum. So it would seem that YOU are the stalker.

Game over, I win again.
Click to expand...

WOW-you are the troll killer :rofl: GOOD JOB! Question: how could this troll know your moniker used to be Tabasco if you have never mentioned it?
 
redneck southerners are too fucking stupid to understand the exponentially lower murder rate in Europe so don't even bring that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top