I'll bet there are many disarmed and frightened people in Boston that have had their first "moment" where they wish they were armed so they could do something other than simply be victims if the guy shows up at their house.
I now understand the order to stay in your homes
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
I'll bet there are many disarmed and frightened people in Boston that have had their first "moment" where they wish they were armed so they could do something other than simply be victims if the guy shows up at their house.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
If this is the first time they desired to be armed, they haven't been "disarmed"
Ah, so you think I should have used "unarmed" to make my point more acceptable to your newly acquired strict engineerism? Consider it done.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
But according to you gun nuts everyone IS armed.
You've claimed time and again a frying pan can be a weapon...
A Knife can be a weapon...
A bowling trophy can be a weapon...
A screwdriver can be a weapon...
Everyone's got something in their house capable of killing according to you gun nuts, so just by using your criteria, we can conclude no one is unarmed.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I bet there's lots of folks in Mass wishing they had a gun at home now...
Irrational fear that prompts you to bring a deadly weapon into your home... Smart.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Sure.....can we start with you?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Damo the difference between unarmed and disarmed, in current context, is huge.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
But the thing is that I am not against people having a gun in their home. That's not what gun control is.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
hahhaa, you got them there zap!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you refuse to answer the question.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that in itself is a very poor representation of reverse psychology if you're trying to tell terrorists that we're not afraid of them.
Steelplate
New member
No...just trying to get this right. Filling out a background check form is taking your rights away, but tracking down everyone who ever committed a violent crime or who is mentally I'll and locking them up on a permanent basis isn't.
The question isn't worthy OF answering.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
right on. fuck that whole freedom of movement and right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure shit. about time we did away with that.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
locking down a town and searching door to door is rational?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
once I give you the guidelines of defining sanity. =)Sure.....can we start with you?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the question is what is better at providing safety to the community. do you believe that mandatory background checks that will not affect violent criminals in any way, shape, or form is a better way of providing security than rounding up all violent criminals and the criminally insane and locking them up forever?
Steelplate
New member
I get it.... you are an anarchist. if they told people to act normally, you'd be bitching about the Gubmint putting them in harm's way with a dangerous terrorist on the loose. So no matter what....they'd be wrong.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
You got it!!! If they told people to about their business and this guy blew up a bus, STY would be on here mocking us for believing the government was going to protect us.