• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales

TurtleDude said:
sorry the constittional rights of individuals trumps the hysterics of the left.

maybe we should have people divulge their 1040s before they could vote
Click to expand...

You don't think your income and taxes are accessible if you know where to look? Are you serious?
 
Morality Games said:
I would not challenge the effectiveness of gun regulation toward preventing incidents like this from happening. Mentally unstable people tend to be socially dysfunctional to the point that even going into a store and purchasing an item - any store, or any item - can be a challenge. Going through the channels and making the (often evasive and shady) contacts which enable them to obtain the required weapons illegally is a greater challenge for them than for psychologically typical citizens. It would be like somebody who has never used drugs and who doesn't know anybody in the culture trying to buy marijuana, but much more difficult and dangerous.

The people who don't buy guns commercially are the people who use them rationally; that is, crimes of "rational self-interest," in which not being caught by the police is a major factor. Such people are not likely to target crowds or politicians, which at the very least would cause the FBI to hammer down on them with all of its administrative and investigative strength.
Click to expand...

Good point. This idiot bought his gun and ammo legally as did the Virgina Tech shooter as did numerous other whack jobs including the prof that off her associates at the univeristy.
 
TurtleDude said:
you seem confused-federal gun laws are the same in every state
Click to expand...

But not state laws. One of the problems I see in another industry I am involved in is the state laws are all over the place and they CAN be more stringent than Federal laws. Obviously you haven't been in Massachusetts.
 
VanceMack said:
I am simply amazed.

Is ANYONE really stupid enough to belive that someone such as the individual in question would simply have abandoned his plans if he couldnt get a firearm? Has there been ANYTHING written that implies a magazine capacity ban would prevent this particular unstable individual from executing his rampage?

This is pathetic and typical. Tragedy occurs...seize it and use it to advance your own political agenda.

Should we deny a drivers license based on the same grounds? Should there be a national data base to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing sharp objects? Spray paint? Should we allow landlords access to that same database to be more selctive with who the rent to? EMployers to ensure they dont hire this type of individual and put their own employees at risk? Where does it stop? Or do you want those changes in law to ONLY apply to your particular political bent?

The bodies arent even cold yet. Hell...they hadnt stopped bleeding before people started using it for political attacks...maybe you should give it a few days before you whore out the dead for your causes.
Click to expand...

Shame on you for insulting and exaggerating your case with nongermane examples. I'll bet you excused the death rate on 9/11 by comparing it to car accident numbers too. Baaaah.
 
Gill said:
Do you refer to a computer as a television ??? If not, why do you insist on calling an ammo magazine something its not?
Click to expand...

Because it's irrelevant to the topic.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Because it's irrelevant to the topic.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so you think its irrelevant to the discussion of the Senator that was shot with a rifle ???

Her title and what she was shot with is irrelevant, right ??

Proper use of the terms is ALWAYS important.
 
Crosscheck said:
Fighting guns in the hands of criminals and morons is noble but realistically impossible.

I am not in agreement with you usually but agree with you here that there would be the automatic knee jerk reaction to discuss gun control.

Now, I am waiting for the automatic knee jerk reaction by a gun owner (which I am one) that if someone had a gun there the damage could have been shorten. That reaction I question. In this particular case if you had been there with a gun could you really have stopped the carnage. In a crowd like that I don't know about firing a shot. You would have to be point blank on him and what are the odds of that. And if you were up that close to him I think the best solution would have been the one taken by the man and woman who tackled him and disarmed him.

I am still impressed with the unidentified woman who wrestled away his magazine from him. That states a lot about the power adrenaline gives you . That lady is a hero in my book.
Click to expand...




yes. I could, I could have at least done something to lessen the carnage.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
If you want the privledge of a weapon perhaps if you're nutjob yes. We already have background checks don't we? BTW I know a couple of people that carry permits and they are one oar shy of a boat. No criminal record though. I wouldn't want them around me with a gun.
Click to expand...



This tells me more about who you choose as friends than it says about us CCW holders. Just sayin kid..


and it's not a "priveledge" comrade, it's a right.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
So what back at you. ;) What difference does it make what it's called? :mrgreen: 33 bullets is a lot freaking fire power especially when a coward goes ballistic (no pun intended) against defenseless civilians.
Click to expand...




that's about 4 seconds worth of firing


Glock


glock 19 has a 33 round magazine.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
With a 30 round clip.
Click to expand...




This is a "clip"

BC108117880.jpg



This is a "magazine"...


glock+33rd+9mm.jpg




Glad I could help.
 
It is becoming apparent that the shooter was not exactly a "right wing gun nut"...

A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.

....
We've confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College, so her claims of knowing Loughner seem to be legit.

...

She describes him as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."
Click to expand...

Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead" - Phoenix News - Valley Fever


Not to mention, the Congresswoman was pro-2nd Amendment.
 
Wiseone said:
Its a reference to the fact that you are asking me to simply take your creditably on Arizona gun law simply because you say they are present. And I'm saying I'm assuming you don't just take everyone at their word when they say they have a certain degree of familiarity with a subject, therefore you're apply a different standard to yourself as you do others.
Click to expand...

We both know that your continued harping on this particular point is asinine. In order for there to truly be a double standard, I would have to have applied something similar to someone else. Please prove I did so, because we both know that I haven’t called for your personal qualifications on anything. Bottom line, you insisted that I answer a question that you and I both know is not empirically verifiable. You intentionally did so knowing that whatever answer I might give you could simply dismiss by saying “I don’t believe you.” I gave you my personal evidence, and you immediately dismissed it, as I assumed you would.This is poor debate at it’s core, and this is why I don’t give a rat’s tookus if you believe me or not. Let's just drop this particular point, because it's only making you look ridiculous.

Wiseone said:
You're over simplifying the issue again, we both know guns can work either way for example look at Somalia or Mexico. We also know you are specifically talking about legal guns, not just guns in general. If it were just guns that deterred crime in general, it wouldn't matter if they were acquired legally or illegally. However a central pillar of your argument is that criminals will get guns one way or another, and its the availability of guns to the responsible population that really matters. Its these qualifiers and explanations of your positions you constantly leave out.
Click to expand...

No, YOU’RE oversimplifying the issue. You claim that there are much better ways to control guns, you just have no idea what they are and the ONLY example you’ve given involves a complete change of system of government. Furthermore, Somalia and Mexico are both atrocious examples that prove my point even further. You think that those two countries are examples of what happens without gun control? :rofl: The only people that have the easy access to guns in Somalia and Mexico are the lawless individuals, and they use their force monopoly to inflict terror upon the rest of the population, who are not similarly armed. Why do you think cartel members are willing to shoot up birthday parties without fear of reprisal or Somali pirates lock down entire coastal villages? Your premise is absolutely ridiculous and your argument is foundering more rapidly by the second.

Wiseone said:
I was simply trying to show there were other solutions to gun crime, something you refused to admit because of politics. If I'm simply trying to show there is not only one of something, I only need to demonstrate and show there's just one other. A second example wasn't necessary but Germany still works perfect as a case where stricter gun laws and stricter control has led to less gun crime. Germany Reevaluates Gun Laws After School Shooting | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 23.11.2006
Click to expand...

As I showed you in the other thread, Germany may have enacted gun control laws, but they are clearly unable to enforce them. They know where 20% of the guns in their country are, with over 15 million firearms unaccounted for. How is that control working out for them again?

Wiseone said:
Also, for the I don't know how many-ith time, I'm not advocating any form of policy and I'm certainly not saying we should adopt a Chinese style system. I am, again explaining this after I dunno many how times, simply trying to show its foolish to simply state no additional or changed gun law will work, especially considering you're clear lack of demonstrated knowledge on Arizona gun law.
Click to expand...

Again, you’re not advocating any policy changes because you have no idea how to fix the problem through legislation here in this country. (There ISN'T a way to legislate personal safety from crime.) You have no alternatives, and as you’ve personally stated you are simply resistant to the idea that my premise might be correct and that the most effective guarantee to personal safety is a properly armed and educated populace. Making guns harder to legally obtain is a direct threat to the safety of those who will actually go through the legal process to get them. It has no, I repeat, NO impact on the people who care nothing for the law, and they are the ones you should be worried about.


Wiseone said:
How many times do I have to say I'm not pushing policy? Listen to me carefully, I'm from Arizona, I own a weapon, and I love my state's gun laws. We suffer low crime in part due to them and much of our crime comes from other sources such as south of the border, but its deterred in places like Phoenix due to people owning weapons. I don't disagree with any of that, I just think its silly to suggest that ANY change and ANY additional gun laws will hurt people.
Click to expand...

I don’t care where you’re from and I don’t care that you say you own a gun. That’s like the person who uses the “Well, I have a black friend” argument in an attempt to prove that they are not a racist. Neither of your statements are relevant to the discussion at hand. You JUST ADMITTED the point I’ve been trying to get through to you:
and I love my state's gun laws. We suffer low crime in part due to them and much of our crime comes from other sources such as south of the border
Click to expand...

Thank you.

One final point, I’m not anti-gun control, I’m anti-ineffective gun control. If you could prove to me that you have a way to keep criminals from getting their hands on weapons or harming the populace, if you could guarantee me the same safety without a firearm that I currently have with one, I would turn in my guns in a heartbeat and sleep safely and peacefully with the decision. The problem is that we live in an imperfect world and you can never guarantee my safety. I am responsible for protecting me and my own. THAT is why it should not be harder for people to legally obtain firearms.
 
theangryamerican said:
Color me surprised that it took less than 24 hours for someone to turn a tragic event into a political grandstand against gun ownership. :doh

Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales
Click to expand...

It's not about gun ownership? That's the problem with the idiotic NRA all-or-nothing argument!

It's about tracking how this jackass got his guns and his bullets and blocking that. No one gives a turd about your legally purchased guns. Waste your money shooting at cans and unarmed deer. We want to stop the flood of guns into the grey/black market.

If the idiots at the NRA would get that and join with the rest of us with some pragmatic solutions to prevent guns getting to those who would misuse them, then we could get somewhere?

But NO-OOOOOOO! They're a bunch of paranoid assholes who won't budge an inch off their backwards all-or-nothing stance. The blood of that 9-year-old girl is on their hands. And anyone who refuses to even have the conversation.
 
hazlnut said:
It's not about gun ownership? That's the problem with the idiotic NRA all-or-nothing argument!

It's about tracking how this jackass got his guns and his bullets and blocking that. No one gives a turd about your legally purchased guns. Waste your money shooting at cans and unarmed deer. We want to stop the flood of guns into the grey/black market.

If the idiots at the NRA would get that and join with the rest of us with some pragmatic solutions to prevent guns getting to those who would misuse them, then we could get somewhere?

But NO-OOOOOOO! They're a bunch of paranoid assholes who won't budge an inch off their backwards all-or-nothing stance. The blood of that 9-year-old girl is on their hands. And anyone who refuses to even have the conversation.
Click to expand...



utter nonsense. This guy would have found another way to do his damage, gun or no gun. you want to restrict me, because of the action of an individual. we simply value freedom more than some folk.


I agree the NRA are a bunch of idiots. I turned in my lifetime membership. they are too soft and too willing to compromise on the 2nd.
 
hazlnut said:
It's not about gun ownership? That's the problem with the idiotic NRA all-or-nothing argument!

It's about tracking how this jackass got his guns and his bullets and blocking that. No one gives a turd about your legally purchased guns. Waste your money shooting at cans and unarmed deer. We want to stop the flood of guns into the grey/black market.

If the idiots at the NRA would get that and join with the rest of us with some pragmatic solutions to prevent guns getting to those who would misuse them, then we could get somewhere?

But NO-OOOOOOO! They're a bunch of paranoid assholes who won't budge an inch off their backwards all-or-nothing stance. The blood of that 9-year-old girl is on their hands. And anyone who refuses to even have the conversation.
Click to expand...

Alright, put up or shut up. Let's hear your "solutions" and I'll tell you why they won't work.

*edit* Btw, I'm not nor have I ever been NRA. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
It's not about gun ownership? That's the problem with the idiotic NRA all-or-nothing argument!

It's about tracking how this jackass got his guns and his bullets and blocking that. No one gives a turd about your legally purchased guns. Waste your money shooting at cans and unarmed deer. We want to stop the flood of guns into the grey/black market.

If the idiots at the NRA would get that and join with the rest of us with some pragmatic solutions to prevent guns getting to those who would misuse them, then we could get somewhere?

But NO-OOOOOOO! They're a bunch of paranoid assholes who won't budge an inch off their backwards all-or-nothing stance. The blood of that 9-year-old girl is on their hands. And anyone who refuses to even have the conversation.
Click to expand...

The blood of the 9 yo is on the hands of the NRA???? That's the most outrageous thing I've heard in awhile and even for you, is pretty absurd.

The man bought the gun legally. He was subjected to the legally required background check and passed. If you want to blame someone, start with the ACLU that fought against including mental disorders in the database. In this case though, it wouldn't have mattered because he hadn't been treated for mental illness, at least from what we know now.
 
Gill said:
The blood of the 9 yo is on the hands of the NRA???? That's the most outrageous thing I've heard in awhile and even for you, is pretty absurd.
Click to expand...
Consider the source of the absurdity Gill. The fact is, the NRA has been against the mentally ill getting guns.

The NRA's view from 2007:
Wayne LaPierre said:
Well, here's the deal. There's a lot of misinformation floating around and let me give you the exact story on it. NRA's been trying to get improvements made in this system for years to make this fair for law-abiding gun owners because 99.9% of the people that go through that system are the good guys. On the other hand if somebody's adjudicated by a court of law to be mentally defective, suicidal, danger to themselves, danger to others, NRA has said for 15 years that court adjudication ought to be part of the file to screen out people that are mentally defective, adjudicated by a court.
Click to expand...

Interview with Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA

Hazlnut is just ripping off HuffPo's rant about the NRA and parroting it.
Josh Horwitz: Tucson Shooting Shows True Face of NRA's "Second Amendment Remedies"
 
EnigmaO01 said:
If you want the privledge of a weapon perhaps if you're nutjob yes. We already have background checks don't we? BTW I know a couple of people that carry permits and they are one oar shy of a boat. No criminal record though. I wouldn't want them around me with a gun.
Click to expand...

Your opinions do not trump fact: permit holders tend to be more law-abiding than the general population and very rarely cause any trouble.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[61]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[62]
Click to expand...

Indeed, few lawfully-owned guns are ever used in a crime:

Firearms as Used in Crime
Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms, and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)
Click to expand...


Nor are gun accidents as much of an issue as some would try to claim:

Firearms Accidents and Firearms Safety Education
Fatal Firearms Accidents for All Ages Annually: 1,134 nationwide in 1996. Rate of 0.4 per 100T population. Represents a roughly 90% decrease from record high in 1904. Accident rate is down by 65% since 1930, while U.S. population has doubled and number of privately-owned firearms has quadrupled. Compare to other types of fatal accidents, for all ages: Motor Vehicles 16.7/100T, Falls 4.8/100T, Poisoning 4.0/100T, Drowning 1.7/100T, Fires 1.6/100T, Choking 1.1/100T.(National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, BATF, US Census)
Click to expand...

Your personal opinions notwithstanding, the numbers do not back you up.

Contrariwise, I've known literally hundreds of permit-holders, because I teach firearm classes sometimes. The vast majority were sensible, reasonable people who would be perfectly welcome to enter my home armed.
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
We both know that your continued harping on this particular point is asinine. In order for there to truly be a double standard, I would have to have applied something similar to someone else. Please prove I did so, because we both know that I haven’t called for your personal qualifications on anything. Bottom line, you insisted that I answer a question that you and I both know is not empirically verifiable. You intentionally did so knowing that whatever answer I might give you could simply dismiss by saying “I don’t believe you.” I gave you my personal evidence, and you immediately dismissed it, as I assumed you would.This is poor debate at it’s core, and this is why I don’t give a rat’s tookus if you believe me or not. Let's just drop this particular point, because it's only making you look ridiculous.



No, YOU’RE oversimplifying the issue. You claim that there are much better ways to control guns, you just have no idea what they are and the ONLY example you’ve given involves a complete change of system of government. Furthermore, Somalia and Mexico are both atrocious examples that prove my point even further. You think that those two countries are examples of what happens without gun control? :rofl: The only people that have the easy access to guns in Somalia and Mexico are the lawless individuals, and they use their force monopoly to inflict terror upon the rest of the population, who are not similarly armed. Why do you think cartel members are willing to shoot up birthday parties without fear of reprisal or Somali pirates lock down entire coastal villages? Your premise is absolutely ridiculous and your argument is foundering more rapidly by the second.



As I showed you in the other thread, Germany may have enacted gun control laws, but they are clearly unable to enforce them. They know where 20% of the guns in their country are, with over 15 million firearms unaccounted for. How is that control working out for them again?



Again, you’re not advocating any policy changes because you have no idea how to fix the problem through legislation here in this country. (There ISN'T a way to legislate personal safety from crime.) You have no alternatives, and as you’ve personally stated you are simply resistant to the idea that my premise might be correct and that the most effective guarantee to personal safety is a properly armed and educated populace. Making guns harder to legally obtain is a direct threat to the safety of those who will actually go through the legal process to get them. It has no, I repeat, NO impact on the people who care nothing for the law, and they are the ones you should be worried about.




I don’t care where you’re from and I don’t care that you say you own a gun. That’s like the person who uses the “Well, I have a black friend” argument in an attempt to prove that they are not a racist. Neither of your statements are relevant to the discussion at hand. You JUST ADMITTED the point I’ve been trying to get through to you:

Thank you.

One final point, I’m not anti-gun control, I’m anti-ineffective gun control. If you could prove to me that you have a way to keep criminals from getting their hands on weapons or harming the populace, if you could guarantee me the same safety without a firearm that I currently have with one, I would turn in my guns in a heartbeat and sleep safely and peacefully with the decision. The problem is that we live in an imperfect world and you can never guarantee my safety. I am responsible for protecting me and my own. THAT is why it should not be harder for people to legally obtain firearms.
Click to expand...

Ok lets drop all the above and focus on the last two. I don't disagree with you. Thats what I meant when I said we don't disagree on policy, I just think its silly to write off any attempt to improve the law. Now again I don't know the system well enough or studied it well enough to present something that I'm absolutely confident is correct. Of course I'm betting you're going to take that as evidence that you understand this issue more than me, not that you haven't already decided that, however my personal standard for justifying that kind of confidence in a solution is much higher than yours I'm sure.

However I do have ideas and I do think that the murder of 9 people justifies a little looking into the system to see whats wrong, even if you don't know exactly what you are looking for. For example the individual in question had a criminal record which included what I believe were at least a few felony drug violations, that should be something which turns up in that check. Clearly something was wrong with the system where this man was able to purchase a weapon legally. When the law isn't being enforced its a problem.

There's also this idea
Feds want reporting for high-powered rifle sales - Yahoo! News

The nuts and bolts is that any sale of 2 or more high powered rifles along border states will be reported to the ATF, only so they may have a second look at the sale to ensure its not a purchase by drug smuggling cartels. If the ATF sees thats its all kosher, than its no problem and the purchaser isn't bothered at all. So the purchaser isn't bothered at all, is still allowed to buy the guns on the spot, but the ATF takes a closer look because so many American weapons are turning up in Mexico.

Is that a good idea?
 
Wiseone said:
However I do have ideas and I do think that the murder of 9 people justifies a little looking into the system to see whats wrong, even if you don't know exactly what you are looking for. For example the individual in question had a criminal record which included what I believe were at least a few felony drug violations, that should be something which turns up in that check. Clearly something was wrong with the system where this man was able to purchase a weapon legally. When the law isn't being enforced its a problem.
Click to expand...

I believe you're incorrect about him having a felony record. Do you have any sources confirming this? Current gun laws already forbid felons from purchasing guns, so if this is the case, than clearly even the fact that it was against the law did not stop him from getting a weapon. How would more legislation improve this? If he truly had no recorded criminal history, there was no reason for the shop not to sell him the gun. They could not have known what his intentions were.

Wiseone said:
There's also this idea
Feds want reporting for high-powered rifle sales - Yahoo! News

The nuts and bolts is that any sale of 2 or more high powered rifles along border states will be reported to the ATF, only so they may have a second look at the sale to ensure its not a purchase by drug smuggling cartels. If the ATF sees thats its all kosher, than its no problem and the purchaser isn't bothered at all. So the purchaser isn't bothered at all, is still allowed to buy the guns on the spot, but the ATF takes a closer look because so many American weapons are turning up in Mexico.

Is that a good idea?
Click to expand...

It's a worthless idea. Let me quickly describe why: A bad guy wishes to buy five rifles in a week. He simply has five associates with clean backgrounds each buy a gun and give it to him. This is what's known as a straw sale. It looks on the up-and-up on paper. Now, a father wishes to legally buy two hunting rifles so he and his son can go out hunting this weekend. Guess who will end up in the ATF database? Hint: it's not the bad guy. A straw buy is literally impossible to prevent. How can the ATF immediately determine a buyer's intent without compiling an extensive database of who's buying what? Forgive me, but the ATF has no more business knowing how many guns I have in my house than they do knowing how many bottles of alcohol or packs of cigarettes I currently own.
Furthermore, guns readily available on the black market for the right price mean that U.S. gun shops often don't even compete with what cartels are looking to buy.
Simply put, the criminal has far more options available to them than the law abiding citizen when it comes to obtaining arms. We can't stop the criminal from getting his gun, so the best we can do is not make it harder for the law abiding citizen buy what he needs to protect himself.
 
theangryamerican said:
I believe you're incorrect about him having a felony record. Do you have any sources confirming this? Current gun laws already forbid felons from purchasing guns, so if this is the case, than clearly even the fact that it was against the law did not stop him from getting a weapon. How would more legislation improve this? If he truly had no recorded criminal history, there was no reason for the shop not to sell him the gun. They could not have known what his intentions were.
Click to expand...

I didn't say more legislation was the answer, I simply said there was something wrong with the system specifically its not working as designed. My idea in this situation would be to exaimine the enforcement of the law, as it clearly did not live up to expectations in this case. I don't know specifically what I'm looking for but there's a place to start. I mean if a felon can purchase a weapon from a gun store, which is supposed to be illegal than clearly something needs to be done to ensure the law is actually enforced?


It's a worthless idea. Let me quickly describe why: A bad guy wishes to buy five rifles in a week. He simply has five associates with clean backgrounds each buy a gun and give it to him. This is what's known as a straw sale. It looks on the up-and-up on paper. Now, a father wishes to legally buy two hunting rifles so he and his son can go out hunting this weekend. Guess who will end up in the ATF database? Hint: it's not the bad guy. A straw buy is literally impossible to prevent. How can the ATF immediately determine a buyer's intent without compiling an extensive database of who's buying what? Forgive me, but the ATF has no more business knowing how many guns I have in my house than they do knowing how many bottles of alcohol or packs of cigarettes I currently own.
Furthermore, guns readily available on the black market for the right price mean that U.S. gun shops often don't even compete with what cartels are looking to buy.
Simply put, the criminal has far more options available to them than the law abiding citizen when it comes to obtaining arms. We can't stop the criminal from getting his gun, so the best we can do is not make it harder for the law abiding citizen buy what he needs to protect himself.
Click to expand...

I agree, there's certainly a easy way around this law by using multiple persons and a law which isn't effective at its stated goal probably shouldn't exist. I brought this up not because I agree with it, but because I'm open to reading and learning about new ideas which is how I can justify my opposition or support of them. You on other hand, in the belief you know all you need to know already, won't learn anything new or look at new ideas and systems and may miss something which is a better way of doing things than.
 
Gill said:
Ahhh, so you think its irrelevant to the discussion of the Senator that was shot with a rifle ???

Her title and what she was shot with is irrelevant, right ??

Proper use of the terms is ALWAYS important.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard that since basic training. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom