Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by pilot-in-fla, Dec 13, 2015.
The only semantics are your own. The facts have been provided to you repeatedly.
Hotrod, you got quoting issues.
They can compare me to Cowboy all they want. As much as I hate throwing labels around, it's a forum full of conservative Republicans, and I'm the dissenting voice. The same thing would happen if one of them went to a forum full of liberal Democrats. I just love getting them riled up.
Hmmm, sounds like a familiar issue shared with most of the liberals.
We just love watching you make a fool of yourself. Please continue.
You hear that L-boy, avatara, hot rod, GMD, it'sdookie, Jereed, stephenPE, fishon? Bunch of Conservative Republicans...the whole lot of ya
And compare that to the number of conservatives.
There aren't a lot of "conservatives". Several moderates, and several libertarian types. Does the board lean slightly more right than left, yes, however it's anything but an echo chamber.
You have to be getting tired moving those goalposts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Feel like you are talking to a five year old?
No. He's at least a teenager. Knows just enough to be dangerous.
So are we saying we'd rather just take a reactive approach, and only shoot the madman after he's started shooting? Wouldn't a proactive approach where we keep the madman from getting a gun in the first place seem to be the more prudent choice?
This is the one that jumped out at me. A criminal makes a deal with another criminal on the black market for a gun, both of them knowing they are breaking the law because they are, you know, criminals. How is making it illegal to purchase a gun without a background check going to stop those particular transactions, i.e. the ones that really matter? The people that commit mass shootings and violent crimes are lawbreakers. They don't follow the law. The answer the left always comes up with is more law, more law, more law, and that doesn't address the problem AT ALL. It's like beating your head against the wall. They just feel like something has to be done, even if it doesn't work and may in fact make the problem worse.
Aren't you the one that wants to wait for the cops? Do you want to shoot people before the commit crimes? Who gets to decide who you shoot? Sure, and in perfect worlds there are always unicorns and rainbows. There is certainly a lot more to discussing "don't let madmen have guns" than just saying it. No responsible gun owner wants "madmen" to have them. However, if you want to keep guns out of the hands of "madmen" you're going to have to do so within the confines of the United States Constitution.
Chopping up what I said and answering each part as if they were separate statements is bush league, even for you. You know damn well the point I was making. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It can be changed. But you already knew that. And pretty much every other developed country has a lower gun violence rate than we do, so it's absolutely possible to decrease it.
I chopped it up to respond to a point. At any rate of course the constitution can be changed, however until it is, you have to work within the confines of it. That's just how it works. No one said we can't reduce gun violence, only that the efforts to so so must work within the confines of the United States Constitution. Just like every other law must work within the confines of the United States Constitution.
The last gun show I went to disallowed private sales. I was under the impression majority had done the same due to legal liability and bad press. I'd like to see all the sales flooding the market.
It is illegal to shoot people. If I shoot you in the face, have I just found a loophole?
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.