Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
pogo said:Can I count on you to proceed to all the threads I've been in and tell me what I think in your profound ignorance because you can't understand simple English and prefer to rewrite to suit your own purposes then? I look forward to that. Coward.
You're the one who declines every request to man up and clarify your view since your statements are endlessly contradictory. And you call ... me ... a coward? That's just rich.
You can't even remember if you're arguing for gun laws or not.
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
One hundred plus pages of liberals not answering the question. It's a simple question...
One hundred plus pages of a troll going
You don't want a debate; you want an echo chamber to make yourself feel better.
Dismissed.
pogo said:Can I count on you to proceed to all the threads I've been in and tell me what I think in your profound ignorance because you can't understand simple English and prefer to rewrite to suit your own purposes then? I look forward to that. Coward.
You're the one who declines every request to man up and clarify your view since your statements are endlessly contradictory. And you call ... me ... a coward? That's just rich.
You can't even remember if you're arguing for gun laws or not.
Go find one post where I've argued for gun laws, fuck bag. Bring it back here and we'll talk turkey.
And then you'll go on feigning ignorance and failure to understand as you've been doing throughout this thread any time an idea comes up that you can't deal with and pretend that no point was made. Just as you're doing here. Coward.
See a shrink. You have a disease.
No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.
This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.
spoonman said:how many babies did we kill? I mean seriously, you want to talk about barbaric.
--- huh?
Who?
The spoonman is great, I love ya man.
But he was saying that gun laws are not barbaric, abortion is. It was a red herring.
Seriously, you didn't get that though?
You're the one who declines every request to man up and clarify your view since your statements are endlessly contradictory. And you call ... me ... a coward? That's just rich.
You can't even remember if you're arguing for gun laws or not.
Go find one post where I've argued for gun laws, fuck bag. Bring it back here and we'll talk turkey.
And then you'll go on feigning ignorance and failure to understand as you've been doing throughout this thread any time an idea comes up that you can't deal with and pretend that no point was made. Just as you're doing here. Coward.
See a shrink. You have a disease.
Ah, I see what confused you. You wanted one example where you'd argued for gun laws and I gave you two. Apparently that was a double negative to you.
No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.
This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.
--- huh?
Who?
The spoonman is great, I love ya man.
But he was saying that gun laws are not barbaric, abortion is. It was a red herring.
Seriously, you didn't get that though?
No, I didn't. Nobody brought up abortion and it's not an abortion thread, nor does it appear anywhere in the article. Why would I see a red herring coming?
Given your track record of interpreting posts, perhaps we'd better let Spoon answer for himself.
The spoonman is great, I love ya man.
But he was saying that gun laws are not barbaric, abortion is. It was a red herring.
Seriously, you didn't get that though?
No, I didn't. Nobody brought up abortion and it's not an abortion thread, nor does it appear anywhere in the article. Why would I see a red herring coming?
Given your track record of interpreting posts, perhaps we'd better let Spoon answer for himself.
great example of begging the question.
BTW, the reason you should have understood that it was a red herring was that his reference was obvious whether you saw it or not.
But then you're the guy who can't man up and clarify what you are arguing. I meant my surprise you didn't get his obvious abortion reference rhetorically, I wasn't surprised at all.
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
bump
The "demand" for guns is widespread, multi-faceted in ways well beyiond your depth - in fact, it stems from every legal puroise someone might have for a gun and the constitutionaly protected right to same. In that context, how do you reduce that demand?As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
This is as unconstitutional as taxing the crap out of abortions with a regulatory intent to "reduce demand". Fail.Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.
See above - never mind that there's no rational basis for this. Fail.Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Based on what? On what rational basis can you make every simple gun-related murder/armed robbery a federal crime? Fail.Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes...
Unfortunately for you, and leaving the question of efficacy completely alone, there are numerous, clear constitutional issues with your ideas, as noted above. Fail.Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
You don't grasp the concept of a public message board, do you kiddie?Then why can't you just let him answer for himself? Control freak much?
Come back when you grow up.
You are one EVIL SOB. CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS. I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
bump
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
bump
Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.You are one EVIL SOB. CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS. I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back. Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
As for the question
It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition. Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery. You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
bump
You are one EVIL SOB. CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS. I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.You are one EVIL SOB. CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS. I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.bump
They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.
Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.You are one EVIL SOB. CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS. I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.bump
They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.
Shall not infringe INCLUDES not placing a punitive tax on an item to bar low income from exercising their rights under the Constitution. You nor your party can justify insurance on gun owners and again that would be an infringement of the right to bear arms designed to punitively prevent citizens from exercising the right.
As for making all firearm crimes federal that too is unconstitutional as the Fed can not usurp State powers from them any more then States can usurp Federal powers.
GWB. They blame him.Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.You are one EVIL SOB. CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS. I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.
They do revel in body counts. And of course that's why they count the shooter too. The shooter was of course a victim of evil corporations as well. Or the rich. Or racists. I forget which one we're blaming for this one. Maybe it's energy companies...
