- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 36,235
- Reaction score
- 8,380
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Move on black manta. We are tired of being baited.
So again you have nothing.
Par for the course.
Move on black manta. We are tired of being baited.
They may try, but you do not have to fall for that trap.
See what I just wrote about being on an emotional plantation. NOBODY is holding you back. Stop making excuses.
If it had been your family member(s) gunned own with AR-15's, would you think again about limiting their access?
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Do you honestly think republicans care about the inner cities at all? The inner cities need community organizers. Oh wait...
The standard was established by the Surpreme Court. Argue it with them if you wish.
The point is society could not function with every Joe owning nukes or weaponized anthrax. It would collapse.
Obviously that is not the case with common weapons.
And thinking that banning law abiding persons from owning certain types of weapons will prevent mass slaughters is obviously wrong. The biggest mass murder in US history excluding 9-11 was carried out using a fertilizer bomb. The biggest school massacre was carried out using a bomb as well, in 1927. Bombs and bomb-making materials are already restricted btw.
SCOTUS has ruled that saving many lives is consistent with the "strict scrutiny" requirement that the laws be "necessary or crucial"
SCOTUS has also ruled that severe restrictions on common arms are Unconstitutional.
The question is, how many lives and at what cost? Far more people die in automobile accidents than by guns... yet no one is advocating banning cars, restricting everyone to cars that only go 35mph, background checks to buy a car, etc.
Hell if we just did away with 18 wheel trucks and cars on the same roads we'd probably cut traffic fatalities by thousands... but the economic cost would be staggering.
Saving lives is great, but there are always limits to how far we can practically go in so doing.
There are also unintended consequences... like making criminals safer and therefore bolder.
4 people are dead.
My heart goes out to their families. We seem to say that too often nowadays.
Because it's mostly an NRA fiction.
In fictional NRA America criminals (NRA code for minorities) are breaking down doors and invading homes every hour. Pure rubbish of course, but that's what gunlovers trade in
Nope.
Someone I loved was shot dead with a .44 magnum revolver. I didn't respond by calling for a ban on 44's.... I held the man who pulled the trigger responsible.
SCOTUS has also ruled that severe restrictions on common arms are Unconstitutional.
The question is, how many lives and at what cost? Far more people die in automobile accidents than by guns... yet no one is advocating banning cars, restricting everyone to cars that only go 35mph, background checks to buy a car, etc.
Hell if we just did away with 18 wheel trucks and cars on the same roads we'd probably cut traffic fatalities by thousands... but the economic cost would be staggering.
Saving lives is great, but there are always limits to how far we can practically go in so doing.
There are also unintended consequences... like making criminals safer and therefore bolder.
False.
Most conservatives favor some limit by age. Most conservatives favor not allowing felons to purchase. Most conservatives do not want certifiable loonies or known criminals getting guns legally.
The dispute tends to come about when Certain Parties propose laws that will accomplish none of these things but merely impede the law abiding.
How would he have killed your friend without a gun?
Just curious.
That's like blaming the crack pipe instead of the crack.
More like blaming the crack instead of the person smoking it.
But to answer your first question, by hitting him in the head with a rock, choking him, poisoning him with the chemicals under the home sink. Driving over him with a car, putting a bomb on the plane he was in, any number of other options, all of which have been used.
That's a forgone conclussion.
Then why did you ask?
The standard was established by the Surpreme Court. Argue it with them if you wish.
The point is society could not function with every Joe owning nukes or weaponized anthrax. It would collapse.
Obviously that is not the case with common weapons.
And thinking that banning law abiding persons from owning certain types of weapons will prevent mass slaughters is obviously wrong. The biggest mass murder in US history excluding 9-11 was carried out using a fertilizer bomb. The biggest school massacre was carried out using a bomb as well, in 1927. Bombs and bomb-making materials are already restricted btw.
Is there any proof of your assertion?
This case is old news already. See the incident at Florida State U where the perp killed himself before he murdered everyone else in his dorm.4 people are dead.
My heart goes out to their families. We seem to say that too often nowadays.