There are roughly 20,000 gun control-laws in the United States..These laws and regulations govern who can carry a firearm, what kind of firearm is legal, the size of ammunition magazines and more.............
Enforce the existing laws on the books ...
So stay the course, and don't institute any new laws to prevent freakshows like adam lanza from killing people and eric harris and clebold from killing people.
Just keep things the way they are??
You're dumb as dirt..
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
There are roughly 20,000 gun control-laws in the United States..These laws and regulations govern who can carry a firearm, what kind of firearm is legal, the size of ammunition magazines and more.............
Enforce the existing laws on the books ...
So stay the course, and don't institute any new laws to prevent freakshows like adam lanza from killing people and eric harris and clebold from killing people.
Say's someone who thinks it's important to provide military aid and money to unstable countries..........
ROLF ........
Wow, you are really one stupid darn.. I love how you try and stalk a thread without actually posting in it and then take a sentence from it sounding like you have any remote idea what it is you think you're talking about..
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Say's someone who thinks it's important to provide military aid and money to unstable countries..........
ROLF ........
Wow, you are really one stupid darn.. I love how you try and stalk a thread without actually posting in it and then take a sentence from it sounding like you have any remote idea what it is you think you're talking about..
Stilin,like I told you in my last thread ... if you can't control your behavior better and post to the thread topic discussion without childish attacks ..I'm going to have to ask you to not comment again in this thread .
0
Stilin,like I told you in my last thread ... if you can't control your behavior better and post to the thread topic discussion without childish attacks ..I'm going to have to ask you to not comment again in this thread .
Stilin,like I told you in my last thread ... if you can't control your behavior better and post to the thread topic discussion without childish attacks ..I'm going to have to ask you to not comment again in this thread .
I'd love to see you point out where I said we should give money to unstable countries though.. Or were you just stalking djbrows asinine posts that didn't refute a single argument of mine..
Everyone on this forum knows you regurgitate bullshit thats copied and pasted from other sites on the web because you don't have a brain of your own
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Stilin,like I told you in my last thread ... if you can't control your behavior better and post to the thread topic discussion without childish attacks ..I'm going to have to ask you to not comment again in this thread .
I'd love to see you point out where I said we should give money to unstable countries though.. Or were you just stalking djbrows asinine posts that didn't refute a single argument of mine..
Everyone on this forum knows you regurgitate bullshit thats copied and pasted from other sites on the web because you don't have a brain of your own
At least I raised some interesting points that from an objective
perspective one would certainly agree that I raise some pressing
concerns about the aid we give to Israel (without the knowledge of my
previous history of anti-israel threads.)
You on the other hand, can't say the same thing about. You're the king of plagiarism..
0
At least I raised some interesting points that from an objective
perspective one would certainly agree that I raise some pressing
concerns about the aid we give to Israel (without the knowledge of my
previous history of anti-israel threads.)
You on the other hand, can't say the same thing about. You're the king of plagiarism..
Reason weapons need to keep being created is so the second amendment actually continues to mean something. If the govt is the only ones with state of the art guns and the citizens have muskets, then its totally useless that the people could ever keep the govt in check. Might as well completely get rid of the second amendment,because it wont mean nothing anymore.
Most Amerians buy guns for their personal use and not to keep government in check. Fighting among government divisons of power have been far more effective in preventing tyranny than all the guns in American history.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
Reason weapons need to keep being created is so the second amendment actually continues to mean something. If the govt is the only ones with state of the art guns and the citizens have muskets, then its totally useless that the people could ever keep the govt in check. Might as well completely get rid of the second amendment,because it wont mean nothing anymore.
Most Amerians buy guns for their personal use and not to keep government in check. Fighting among government divisons of power have been far more effective in preventing tyranny than all the guns in American history.
So stay the course, and don't institute any new laws to prevent freakshows like adam lanza from killing people and eric harris and clebold from killing people.
Just keep things the way they are??
You're dumb as dirt..
Why don't you tell us which type of law would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering anyone?
See, he wasn't a gun owner and he broke multiple laws by taking those guns into a "gun free zone"
Further, Connecticut already has an Assault Weapons Ban modeled after the 1993 legislation Clinton signed. CT also has background checks, gun registration and gun purchase waiting periods.
So tell us, what type of "law" exactly would prevent this? Simply typing "More laws" isn't an answer.
So go ahead, let's see you address this.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
So stay the course, and don't institute any new laws to prevent freakshows like adam lanza from killing people and eric harris and clebold from killing people.
Just keep things the way they are??
You're dumb as dirt..
Why don't you tell us which type of law would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering anyone?
See, he wasn't a gun owner and he broke multiple laws by taking those guns into a "gun free zone"
Further, Connecticut already has an Assault Weapons Ban modeled after the 1993 legislation Clinton signed. CT also has background checks, gun registration and gun purchase waiting periods.
So tell us, what type of "law" exactly would prevent this? Simply typing "More laws" isn't an answer.
You are saying the bad guys have guns so we need more guns. That logic has put us in this position..and it is the position which profits the gun industry and the NRA.
At some point the issue has to be more than just the same fear routine..fear of the bad guys, fear of the government..
Fear sells, no doubt about it.
You have no substantive rebutall to the fact that there have never been more guns in America and that the murder rate is at a 30 year low.
You keep asserting "this position" as if it is bad or something.
Further, mass shooting are not more common today than they were 30 years ago either.
As I said before, you can't address this topic without hyperbole.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Its a loop game..
You are saying the bad guys have guns so we need more guns. That logic has put us in this position..and it is the position which profits the gun industry and the NRA.
At some point the issue has to be more than just the same fear routine..fear of the bad guys, fear of the government..
Fear sells, no doubt about it.
You have no substantive rebutall to the fact that there have never been more guns in America and that the murder rate is at a 30 year low.
You keep asserting "this position" as if it is bad or something.
Further, mass shooting are not more common today than they were 30 years ago either.
As I said before, you can't address this topic without hyperbole.
That to me isnt the point at all. I think the weapons are not necessary and should never have been manufactured for retail purchase.
I am not interested in your rationalization on the subject, just as you are not interested in my point of view.
I dont see any good that comes from these guns being in existence except for gun corps making money and people being able to shoot each other faster. The creation and use of these weapons spits in the face of the founding fathers and makes a mockery out of a basic, simple concept.
My position has been pretty consistent, I have yet as to be shown how this mass roundup is going to take place and how the government is going to enslave everyone. Since that is how you justify these weapons I will continue to wait for a real explanation which has any reality to it.
Notice I did not make any sarcastic personal jabs..it can be done.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
You have no substantive rebutall to the fact that there have never been more guns in America and that the murder rate is at a 30 year low.
You keep asserting "this position" as if it is bad or something.
Further, mass shooting are not more common today than they were 30 years ago either.
As I said before, you can't address this topic without hyperbole.
That to me isnt the point at all. I think the weapons are not necessary and should never have been manufactured for retail purchase.
I am not interested in your rationalization on the subject, just as you are not interested in my point of view.
I dont see any good that comes from these guns being in existence except for gun corps making money and people being able to shoot each other faster. The creation and use of these weapons spits in the face of the founding fathers and makes a mockery out of a basic, simple concept.
My position has been pretty consistent, I have yet as to be shown how this mass roundup is going to take place and how the government is going to enslave everyone. Since that is how you justify these weapons I will continue to wait for a real explanation which has any reality to it.
Notice I did not make any sarcastic personal jabs..it can be done.
I dont see any good that comes from these guns being in existence except for gun corps making money and people being able to shoot each other faster. The creation and use of these weapons spits in the face of the founding fathers and makes a mockery out of a basic, simple concept.
The founders expected the citizenry to have the capabilities to fend off a foreign military.
So your statement is factually false.
I am not "rationalizing" anything. See, the facts and data are on my side. You are ignoring them to make false statements about the American founders and bizarrely insinuate gun manufacturers are bad for making a profit.
0
I dont see any good that comes from these guns being in existence except for gun corps making money and people being able to shoot each other faster. The creation and use of these weapons spits in the face of the founding fathers and makes a mockery out of a basic, simple concept.
The founders expected the citizenry to have the capabilities to fend off a foreign military.
So your statement is factually false.
I am not "rationalizing" anything. See, the facts and data are on my side. You are ignoring them to make false statements about the American founders and bizarrely insinuate gun manufacturers are bad for making a profit.
I dont see any good that comes from these guns being in existence except for gun corps making money and people being able to shoot each other faster. The creation and use of these weapons spits in the face of the founding fathers and makes a mockery out of a basic, simple concept.
The founders expected the citizenry to have the capabilities to fend off a foreign military.
So your statement is factually false.
I am not "rationalizing" anything. See, the facts and data are on my side. You are ignoring them to make false statements about the American founders and bizarrely insinuate gun manufacturers are bad for making a profit.
My statement is not false, you disagree with it but to me it is not false, just as to you the reply you made feels true while I might disagree with it.
So now we went from guns needed to stop our government to guns like these needed to fend off foreign attacks..at least that makes a bit more sense, but still that does not to ME rationalize the need for the guns we have allowed to be manufactured.
The facts and data are slanted, you find what you want to rationalize your position you ignore or slander the data and information that goes against your position. You put your data up and put others data down.
This is absolutely not a clear cut debate, you can throw out all the altruistic remarks and try to put others down that do not share your position, it wont change the fact that there are two sides to this and yours is not the only or the correct one.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I dont see any good that comes from these guns being in existence except for gun corps making money and people being able to shoot each other faster. The creation and use of these weapons spits in the face of the founding fathers and makes a mockery out of a basic, simple concept.
The founders expected the citizenry to have the capabilities to fend off a foreign military.
So your statement is factually false.
I am not "rationalizing" anything. See, the facts and data are on my side. You are ignoring them to make false statements about the American founders and bizarrely insinuate gun manufacturers are bad for making a profit.
My statement is not false, you disagree with it but to me it is not false, just as to you the reply you made feels true while I might disagree with it.
So now we went from guns needed to stop our government to guns like these needed to fend off foreign attacks..at least that makes a bit more sense, but still that does not to ME rationalize the need for the guns we have allowed to be manufactured.
The facts and data are slanted, you find what you want to rationalize your position you ignore or slander the data and information that goes against your position. You put your data up and put others data down.
This is absolutely not a clear cut debate, you can throw out all the altruistic remarks and try to put others down that do not share your position, it wont change the fact that there are two sides to this and yours is not the only or the correct one.
My statement is not false, you disagree with it but to me it is not false, just as to you the reply you made feels true while I might disagree with it.
So now we went from guns needed to stop our government to guns like these needed to fend off foreign attacks..at least that makes a bit more sense, but still that does not to ME rationalize the need for the guns we have allowed to be manufactured.
The facts and data are slanted, you find what you want to rationalize your position you ignore or slander the data and information that goes against your position. You put your data up and put others data down.
This is absolutely not a clear cut debate, you can throw out all the altruistic remarks and try to put others down that do not share your position, it wont change the fact that there are two sides to this and yours is not the only or the correct one.
Yes, your statement is false. And how do we know this? By what the American founders wrote. That's how.
You can not demonstrate in any manner what so ever that any facts or data I've listed is "slated." Additionally, there is no "other data" being presented anywhere at all.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
My statement is not false, you disagree with it but to me it is not false, just as to you the reply you made feels true while I might disagree with it.
So now we went from guns needed to stop our government to guns like these needed to fend off foreign attacks..at least that makes a bit more sense, but still that does not to ME rationalize the need for the guns we have allowed to be manufactured.
The facts and data are slanted, you find what you want to rationalize your position you ignore or slander the data and information that goes against your position. You put your data up and put others data down.
This is absolutely not a clear cut debate, you can throw out all the altruistic remarks and try to put others down that do not share your position, it wont change the fact that there are two sides to this and yours is not the only or the correct one.
Yes, your statement is false. And how do we know this? By what the American founders wrote. That's how.
You can not demonstrate in any manner what so ever that any facts or data I've listed is "slated." Additionally, there is no "other data" being presented anywhere at all.
Yes, your statement is false. And how do we know this? By what the American founders wrote. That's how.
You can not demonstrate in any manner what so ever that any facts or data I've listed is "slated." Additionally, there is no "other data" being presented anywhere at all.
The founding fathers discussed a concept..we have allowed this simple concept to expand into a massive disgusting mess.
You might disagree with my explanation, but you are wrong in implying they had any idea the scope to which guns would evolve in the future.
Data has been presented for both sides of the debate, you just like making insults and try to break down data that does not support your position..that does not mean the data is not available or presented.
The difference between you and what I am saying is you are altruistic and insulting when your position is not agreed with.
All data is slanted..it is formed, gathered and put together for a purpose..you can find data for near anything you want, any angle or position. You like the data you find and slam the data which does not justify your position.
Why are you acting like this is such a foreign idea..you do it all the time as do others on opposing sides.
In the end you like your position and think you have supported it, others like their positions and support them..its probably a waste of your time trying to use the tactics you do, they never work and make you look shallow and petty.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Yes, your statement is false. And how do we know this? By what the American founders wrote. That's how.
You can not demonstrate in any manner what so ever that any facts or data I've listed is "slated." Additionally, there is no "other data" being presented anywhere at all.
The founding fathers discussed a concept..we have allowed this simple concept to expand into a massive disgusting mess.
You might disagree with my explanation, but you are wrong in implying they had any idea the scope to which guns would evolve in the future.
Data has been presented for both sides of the debate, you just like making insults and try to break down data that does not support your position..that does not mean the data is not available or presented.
The difference between you and what I am saying is you are altruistic and insulting when your position is not agreed with.
All data is slanted..it is formed, gathered and put together for a purpose..you can find data for near anything you want, any angle or position. You like the data you find and slam the data which does not justify your position.
Why are you acting like this is such a foreign idea..you do it all the time as do others on opposing sides.
In the end you like your position and think you have supported it, others like their positions and support them..its probably a waste of your time trying to use the tactics you do, they never work and make you look shallow and petty.
Data has been presented for both sides of the debate, you just like making insults and try to break down data that does not support your position
Really? Where? Where is this data? I haven't seen any. You keep referring to it, but I see no posts with any data that could be considered on "the other side"
You like the data you find and slam the data which does not justify your position.
Really? Where? Where is this data? I haven't seen any.
0
Data has been presented for both sides of the debate, you just like making insults and try to break down data that does not support your position
Really? Where? Where is this data? I haven't seen any. You keep referring to it, but I see no posts with any data that could be considered on "the other side"
You like the data you find and slam the data which does not justify your position.
Really? Where? Where is this data? I haven't seen any.
Why don't you tell us which type of law would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering anyone?
See, he wasn't a gun owner and he broke multiple laws by taking those guns into a "gun free zone"
Further, Connecticut already has an Assault Weapons Ban modeled after the 1993 legislation Clinton signed. CT also has background checks, gun registration and gun purchase waiting periods.
So tell us, what type of "law" exactly would prevent this? Simply typing "More laws" isn't an answer.
So go ahead, let's see you address this.
Put all of your junk into on post. Because most likely I'm not responding to anything you type after this. I've said what I needed to say on guns, and I let you cd, sara, rick and the rest of the clowns in thread argue about absolute nonsense.
Let me school you again as I did in my previous thread in which I co-sponsored that slideshow.
However there are CAP laws, go look them up... Federal gun law age is 21, I know states can regulate their own ages but that's the federal law which applies to federal statues ... Adam Lanza should not have been able to get to those guns as easily as he could have. I'm not saying a law can COMPLETELY prevent this so before you spaz out and start bouncing off the walls, if she had locked those guns up in a place in which her mentally ill son could not have been able to find them it would have been a hell of a lot harder for him to shoot up the school.
In addition to having an armed police officer at elementary school as they do at most high schools around the country. Also much higher security laws concerning schools granted the amount of school shootings over the past few decades...
I'm NOT SAYING arm teachers.... That is friggin stupid. But we can certainly lock them down a lot better than they currently are.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Why don't you tell us which type of law would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering anyone?
See, he wasn't a gun owner and he broke multiple laws by taking those guns into a "gun free zone"
Further, Connecticut already has an Assault Weapons Ban modeled after the 1993 legislation Clinton signed. CT also has background checks, gun registration and gun purchase waiting periods.
So tell us, what type of "law" exactly would prevent this? Simply typing "More laws" isn't an answer.
So go ahead, let's see you address this.
Put all of your junk into on post. Because most likely I'm not responding to anything you type after this. I've said what I needed to say on guns, and I let you cd, sara, rick and the rest of the clowns in thread argue about absolute nonsense.
Let me school you again as I did in my previous thread in which I co-sponsored that slideshow.
However there are CAP laws, go look them up... Federal gun law age is 21, I know states can regulate their own ages but that's the federal law which applies to federal statues ... Adam Lanza should not have been able to get to those guns as easily as he could have. I'm not saying a law can COMPLETELY prevent this so before you spaz out and start bouncing off the walls, if she had locked those guns up in a place in which her mentally ill son could not have been able to find them it would have been a hell of a lot harder for him to shoot up the school.
In addition to having an armed police officer at elementary school as they do at most high schools around the country. Also much higher security laws concerning schools granted the amount of school shootings over the past few decades...
I'm NOT SAYING arm teachers.... That is friggin stupid. But we can certainly lock them down a lot better than they currently are.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
