He stood his ground?!! (Not?!!)

Truth Detector said:
I'm amused at the premise of "common sense" associated to the efforts of the left to prevent gun violence.

Yet when asked how gun laws prevented the shooting in Connecticut, Colorado and other similar events, the silence is deafening because in every one of those cases, existing law did not prevent these criminals from obtaining weapons. As a matter of fact, it is obvious that stricter laws merely impact the law abiding and NOT the criminal element; after all, they are called criminals because they don't obey laws. But then, the obvious never had any impact on liberals with an agenda have they?

Yet, that still is not obvious enough for the gun ban agenda; they now want to naively claim that the citizens who are preyed upon by a criminal element who is revolved through the jail system by liberal well intentioned judges who misguidedly believe they criminals can be reformed, should not have the right to defend themselves. This of course is based on the equally dimwitted and naive belief that the police prevent crimes from happening when in truth, they show up AFTERWARDS.

So no dunces on the left, it is not about small dicks or big dicks; thats just painfully stupid. It's about good common sense and the right to protect your life and property.
Click to expand...


In both the Connecticut and Colorado shootings, as well as several others, the person doing the shooting had no criminal record. So talking about preventing criminals from obtaining weapons completely misses the point when the people doing mass shootings have no prior records.
 
Dantès said:
In both the Connecticut and Colorado shootings, as well as several others, the person doing the shooting had no criminal record. So talking about preventing criminals from obtaining weapons completely misses the point when the people doing mass shootings have no prior records.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And so not one knee-jerk bit of proposed legislation (thinking specifically of expanded background checks) that came out after each event would have prevented any of them. So how do you propose to "stop" these shootings short of completely disarming the general public?
 
cawacko said:
What's the point for what you are proposing? To make it more difficult for someone to exercise their constitutional right to own a weapon? I see no benefit in your proposal. Is that the answer you want to hear? Same for you Mustang since you liked his comment.

I don't see how your proposal would have prevented any of the major shootings we have had recently. Nor do I see a point to setting up a massive DMV like bureaucracy which would be needed.
Click to expand...

'stang I'm bumping this for you. I'm curious to hear what you think Zappa's proposal would do in terms of gun safety within the confines of the law.
 
cawacko said:
'stang I'm bumping this for you. I'm curious to hear what you think Zappa's proposal would do in terms of gun safety within the confines of the law.
Click to expand...

I know that it would not have prevented those individual crimes. Let me tell a story of Mustangs and Guns. I want people to be able to enjoy cars, and race them. I despise people who race cars on the street in a way that would injure or kill other drivers. The same thing with guns. Your not ever going to stop gun violence, nor are you going to stop street racing.


The whole point is to cut down on the level of gun violence and street racing. Register cars, register guns.

We can have background checks for people buying guns, and some other IMHO common sense reforms. But as I told Zappa when I first started posting, I am also strongly in favor of the rights of people to own guns. My son is an eagle scout and his troop likes to shoot. Most of the males in my family own guns....

But at the very least let's have a dialog about what can be done to perhaps make guns a little safer in our society.
 
....and if it came down to an exam and education, great. I think we need a lot more people educated about firearms in our society. I would have no problem with someone having to show they could use a weapon responsibly to own one.
 
cawacko said:
What's the point for what you are proposing? To make it more difficult for someone to exercise their constitutional right to own a weapon? I see no benefit in your proposal. Is that the answer you want to hear? Same for you Mustang since you liked his comment.

I don't see how your proposal would have prevented any of the major shootings we have had recently. Nor do I see a point to setting up a massive DMV like bureaucracy which would be needed.
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, YES...the idea is to make it more difficult for those with anger management issues and other mental health issues to buy a gun.

But as I stated, even an innocuous bi-annual screening is a draconian infringement of 2nd amendment rights according to radical gun nuts unwilling to entertain even the most minimal of compromises.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
tell the entire board you didn't say shit like this. ROFL what a liar
Click to expand...


Well since it's the truth I will:

I NEVER said the ridiculous bullshit STY is accusing me of saying.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between an OFFICER ON THE JOB and being paid for doing his job and a PRIVATE CITIZEN sitting in a theater with his "courage" strapped to his leg, but not according to STY.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
As a matter of fact, YES...the idea is to make it more difficult for those with anger management issues and other mental health issues to buy a gun.

But as I stated, even an innocuous bi-annual screening is a draconian infringement of 2nd amendment rights according to radical gun nuts unwilling to entertain even the most minimal of compromises.
Click to expand...

How would a written test and a firing test expose if someone has anger management issues or mental health problems?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Well since it's the truth I will:

I NEVER said the ridiculous bullshit STY is accusing me of saying.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between an OFFICER ON THE JOB and being paid for doing his job and a PRIVATE CITIZEN sitting in a theater with his "courage" strapped to his leg, but not according to STY.
Click to expand...

what a load of shit. you skirted the entire statement of you saying that police officers, even though highly trained, deserve alot more latitude than any civilian who isn't trained. Otherwise, if the police weren't given such leeway to make mistakes that even result in the deaths of innocents, nobody would want to do the job.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
As a matter of fact, YES...the idea is to make it more difficult for those with anger management issues and other mental health issues to buy a gun.

But as I stated, even an innocuous bi-annual screening is a draconian infringement of 2nd amendment rights according to radical gun nuts unwilling to entertain even the most minimal of compromises.
Click to expand...

yes, it is. If such crap were allowed to happen you cowardly hoplophobes would categorize freedom lovers and having mental health issues and remove their gun rights.
 
The Dude said:
Zero guns equals zero gun murders
Redneck
Click to expand...

Wrong again shit-for-brains; tell that to the families of the 77 people killed and 319 injured by bombs and a shooter in 2011.

Only dimwits think strict gun laws affect criminals. But then, you're an uneducated dunce on the political left; how can we expect you to do something as mundane as engaging your brain before you type.

Carry on dunce.
 
Dantès said:
In both the Connecticut and Colorado shootings, as well as several others, the person doing the shooting had no criminal record. So talking about preventing criminals from obtaining weapons completely misses the point when the people doing mass shootings have no prior records.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point you moron; gun laws had NO effect in ALL these cases. The Connecticut shootings was an underage minor who stole the weapon.

God you people are painfully stupid you know that?

Moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top