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.
No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no.Is a law fair if it is not equally employed?
"Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"
Makes as much sense as what you propose.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.
You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.
That's ridiculous.
No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no."Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"
Makes as much sense as what you propose.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.
You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.
That's ridiculous.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.
You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.
That's ridiculous.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
a ban on semi automatic weapons is not reasonable. No matter how many times you say it , it will never be reasonable.
Let's say you enjoy fast cars and I say "no one needs a car that will do 150 MPH, those are banned, but you can still have a car that does 40 MPH" have your rights been regulated or have they been violated?
They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.
You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.
That's ridiculous.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
a ban on semi automatic weapons is not reasonable. No matter how many times you say it , it will never be reasonable.
Let's say you enjoy fast cars and I say "no one needs a car that will do 150 MPH, those are banned, but you can still have a car that does 40 MPH" have your rights been regulated or have they been violated?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.
You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.
That's ridiculous.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
a ban on semi automatic weapons is not reasonable. No matter how many times you say it , it will never be reasonable.
Let's say you enjoy fast cars and I say "no one needs a car that will do 150 MPH, those are banned, but you can still have a car that does 40 MPH" have your rights been regulated or have they been violated?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.
You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.
That's ridiculous.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
a ban on semi automatic weapons is not reasonable. No matter how many times you say it , it will never be reasonable.
Let's say you enjoy fast cars and I say "no one needs a car that will do 150 MPH, those are banned, but you can still have a car that does 40 MPH" have your rights been regulated or have they been violated?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
And why don't you just admit that you're a gun nut who thinks that any reasonable restriction on the second amendment equates pissing on the Constitution, because that;s what you are.I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
a ban on semi automatic weapons is not reasonable. No matter how many times you say it , it will never be reasonable.
Let's say you enjoy fast cars and I say "no one needs a car that will do 150 MPH, those are banned, but you can still have a car that does 40 MPH" have your rights been regulated or have they been violated?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
Why don't you just admit that you a left wing authoritarian loon and get it over with.
Because that is exactly what you are.
No one is talking about depriving you of your right, only placing reasonable limits on it. No right is limitless. You wanna test that theory? Go yell fire in a theatre, or tell some FBI agent that you think Obama would be much more attractive with a 9mm hole in the center of his forehead, and see just what limitations are put on your "right" of free speech.Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no."Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"
Makes as much sense as what you propose.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.
You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.
That's ridiculous.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
And why don't you just admit that you're a gun nut who thinks that any reasonable restriction on the second amendment equates pissing on the Constitution, because that;s what you are.I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?a ban on semi automatic weapons is not reasonable. No matter how many times you say it , it will never be reasonable.
Let's say you enjoy fast cars and I say "no one needs a car that will do 150 MPH, those are banned, but you can still have a car that does 40 MPH" have your rights been regulated or have they been violated?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
Why don't you just admit that you a left wing authoritarian loon and get it over with.
Because that is exactly what you are.
And why don't you just admit that you're a gun nut who thinks that any reasonable restriction on the second amendment equates pissing on the Constitution, because that;s what you are.I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?a ban on semi automatic weapons is not reasonable. No matter how many times you say it , it will never be reasonable.
Let's say you enjoy fast cars and I say "no one needs a car that will do 150 MPH, those are banned, but you can still have a car that does 40 MPH" have your rights been regulated or have they been violated?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
Why don't you just admit that you a left wing authoritarian loon and get it over with.
Because that is exactly what you are.
One guy used 1 rifle?!?!? You realize that of the last 12 mass shootings - all within the last two years - 8 of them employed an assault rifle? But this is about one guy with one rifle....So.....let's say they ban rifles....with a stroke of a pen...people who own rifles with detachable magazines, and pistols with magazines of more than 15 rounds will become criminals..........
Because 1 guy used 1 rifle to commit murder.....
And you guys are fine with that......when those 8 million gun owners, who never fired a shot in the commission of a crime or mass shooting...are now enemies of the state for possessing a rifle that moments before were legal......
You think that is rational?
And that's kind of the point. Any restriction that results in a single weapon not being available to you is "unreasonable" in your mind. You gun nuts have no concept of reasonable.And why don't you just admit that you're a gun nut who thinks that any reasonable restriction on the second amendment equates pissing on the Constitution, because that;s what you are.I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
Why don't you just admit that you a left wing authoritarian loon and get it over with.
Because that is exactly what you are.
Wrong...you guys have yet to propose a restriction that is reasonable and we have shown you...through rational thought, why you are wrong.....
You don't like rifles with detachable magazines.....millions of other people do...so those millions of people will be turned into criminals overnight, because you don't like the guns they have.
One guy used 1 rifle?!?!? You realize that of the last 12 mass shootings - all within the last two years - 8 of them employed an assault rifle? But this is about one guy with one rifle....So.....let's say they ban rifles....with a stroke of a pen...people who own rifles with detachable magazines, and pistols with magazines of more than 15 rounds will become criminals..........
Because 1 guy used 1 rifle to commit murder.....
And you guys are fine with that......when those 8 million gun owners, who never fired a shot in the commission of a crime or mass shooting...are now enemies of the state for possessing a rifle that moments before were legal......
You think that is rational?
I didn't say regulation, I said restrictions. Sure. You don't mind regulations, so long as you still get to own whatever kind of gun your beedy little heart desires. Any restriction at all is absolutely unacceptable.And why don't you just admit that you're a gun nut who thinks that any reasonable restriction on the second amendment equates pissing on the Constitution, because that;s what you are.I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.They've been regulated. I don't see the need for a car that does 150, so long as we have speed limits, at least not one used for non-racing. Next?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
Why don't you just admit that you a left wing authoritarian loon and get it over with.
Because that is exactly what you are.
no sir, I posted actual reasonable regulations, you rejected them and demanded a ban.
I ask again, why hasn't Obama used his EO to enact "reasonable regulation?"
And that's kind of the point. Any restriction that results in a single weapon not being available to you is "unreasonable" in your mind. You gun nuts have no concept of reasonable.And why don't you just admit that you're a gun nut who thinks that any reasonable restriction on the second amendment equates pissing on the Constitution, because that;s what you are.I didn't say that. I said I would have no problem with passing a law requiring a regulator placed on cars to prevent them from doing so. You asked the question, and I answered it. Since you didn't like my answer, you want to pretend that I claimed something I didn't claim.So no car sold on the market is capable of exceeding the speed limit? LOL
Why don't you just admit that you a left wing authoritarian loon and get it over with.
Because that is exactly what you are.
Wrong...you guys have yet to propose a restriction that is reasonable and we have shown you...through rational thought, why you are wrong.....
You don't like rifles with detachable magazines.....millions of other people do...so those millions of people will be turned into criminals overnight, because you don't like the guns they have.
One guy used 1 rifle?!?!? You realize that of the last 12 mass shootings - all within the last two years - 8 of them employed an assault rifle? But this is about one guy with one rifle....So.....let's say they ban rifles....with a stroke of a pen...people who own rifles with detachable magazines, and pistols with magazines of more than 15 rounds will become criminals..........
Because 1 guy used 1 rifle to commit murder.....
And you guys are fine with that......when those 8 million gun owners, who never fired a shot in the commission of a crime or mass shooting...are now enemies of the state for possessing a rifle that moments before were legal......
You think that is rational?
Excel Industries shooting, resulted in 3 deaths, and 14 wounded. Kalamazoo Shooting Spree: 6 dead, 2 wounded. Planned Parenthood attack in Colorado Springs: 3 dead, 90 wounded. Shall I go on?One guy used 1 rifle?!?!? You realize that of the last 12 mass shootings - all within the last two years - 8 of them employed an assault rifle? But this is about one guy with one rifle....So.....let's say they ban rifles....with a stroke of a pen...people who own rifles with detachable magazines, and pistols with magazines of more than 15 rounds will become criminals..........
Because 1 guy used 1 rifle to commit murder.....
And you guys are fine with that......when those 8 million gun owners, who never fired a shot in the commission of a crime or mass shooting...are now enemies of the state for possessing a rifle that moments before were legal......
You think that is rational?
Name them........Sandy Hook and Aurora, and then San Bernadino.....and there haven't been 12 mass shootings in the last 2 years...again...name them....
