I know I ruffled a lot of people's feathers when I commented on a certain open carrier's demise due to having guns around the home. As I said at the time, she seemed to show that the studies saying that having a gun in the house was more harmful to the people who lived there than any criminal, but that's another point.
After all, it does hurt to know that any serious scrutiny of your positions show they are wrong. After all that's why things like gun violence research funding was basically ended and Tiahrt Amendment were enacted. After all, used to know which were the top gun stores in the state that were supplying crime guns: little wonder the pro-gun side wanted to keep that embarrassing information under wraps!
As for reponsible gun owners. Well, maybe the Firearm Concierge and I are on the same page here:
Nice, talk about a party admission! Who needs all the astroturfed BS you lot post! It does get even better!
Yeah, tell it brother: mass shootings are great for business.
They are even better if you have a bunch of truly useful idiots out there who will make sure that not only won't strict gun laws be enacted, but the existing weak laws are repealed making it easier to sell guns to the wrong people without consequences!
BTW, I am now retired, which means that I make NO money from seeing strict gun laws; however, I do see a public benefit from such laws.
But, I know full well you people will believe whatever you want--facts to the contrary.
Have a nice day!
Laci, you're welcome to believe that guns do more harm than good. What you're not welcome to do is try to compel me to believe the same, whether that be through force of law or physical force. But you're also free to fund any research into guns, gun violence, or the value of guns in a society that you desire. The Tiahrt Amendment only prevents the federal government from wasting our money on that.
ReplyDeleteThe force of law tells everyone what they can and cannot do. That's the way the system works, and many people are upset about laws they feel are unnecessary. Only criminals feel they can break the law, because they disagree with the law. Those who refuse to pay the government tax, end up in jail, as it should be. We have freely elected our representatives and the Constitution gives those representatives the authority to pass laws on our behalf, that all must adhere to.
DeleteYou neglect the possibility of unjust or excessive laws.
DeleteNot at all. The same process is available to get rid of unjust laws.
DeleteReading your comments, you encourage ignoring, or breaking laws, not trying to have laws rescinded through the Democratic process. Making you someone who works outside the law.
Read "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. Then review the history of civil rights movements.
DeleteNo, you need top read about being a good citizen, not a lying criminal coward. Then have concern for dead children. A lying criminal coward like you dishonors Thoreau by by suggesting what you do is what he was talking about. Your delusion is deep and evil.
DeleteNext lie.
Are you going to answer Steve, or apologize to Sally?
No a scum bag like you won't do that, but you compare yourself to Thoreau.
What an ass hole lying criminal scum bag you are
I'm a gunowner and I support the repeal of Tiahrt. To fear the dark is normal, to fear the light is sinister. Get real research done and let that guide legislation, education, and public health initiatives.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a reasonable gun owner, like most I imagine. Only the hard core, minority oppose every and all gun control initiative.
DeleteThe problem is that the legislation that both of you are calling for is aimed at disarming lots of Americans who have a right to own and carry guns.
DeleteThis is the key point over and over: Until the gun control side accepts ownership and carry as basic rights, no deals are possible.
"no deals are possible"
DeleteThat's one way to approach a civil discussion.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Greg is just another guy who has a bad attitude because his panties are wet constantly. He is such a chicken coward about everything that he never uses the actual bathroom. Gee, your laundry must stink bad.
DeleteAnonymous, no civil discussion is possible about violating rights.
DeleteTypical liar
DeleteWho was talking about voting rights
Liars have to change the subject, because they have shit to say about the issue.
The founders negotiated on slavery, but you know better than the founders.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
What a jack ass liar.
The kind of gun control that we talk about here every day is a violation of rights.
DeleteIt's laughable that you think banning gun accessories is a violation of rights. There is no right to a mega clip. Try some more lies, they make you look like the ass hole lying criminal coward that you have been proven to be.
DeleteNext lie.
So, Anonymous, would you regard it as a violation of the First Amendment if books were limited to 153 pages?
DeleteHere goes the lying criminal coward again.
DeleteComparing guns to books.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You really are a stupid shit, and thanks for proving it again.
Rights are rights, Anonymous. You can't say you support the free exercise of a right when you deny people the tools necessary for that exercise.
DeleteGreg, you need grenade launchers, claymore mines and surface to air missiles in order to really exercise your right to self defense.
DeleteWhy is it that gun control advocates are the ones who bring up these other classes of weapons? If you really think those are necessary, we can discuss the idea.
DeleteThe Constitution does not protect the "tools" of a right. You made the same idiotic statement when you said a PC should have protected rights because it is the tool of free speech. Mega mags, are not protected by the 2nd amend. You are truly a laughable extremest idiot liar.
DeleteAnonymous, you're using a computer to exercise your free speech. How about we limit you to a TRS-80?
DeleteHow idiotic are you going to prove yourself to be? I guess all the people in the country who do not have a PC are being denied their free speech right. Why do you insist on making yourself look like an absolute fool?
DeleteI bring up the other types of weapons to illustrate that we already have an arbitrary line drawn between acceptable and prohibited weapons. You keep talking like the line is some reasonable delineation allowing you exactly what you need to defend yourself. That's just not the case.
DeleteThe line needs to be adjusted a tiny bit more, that's all.
Anonymous, would you agree with me that not having a computer with Internet access limits a person's ability to speak? Some people choose not to get on-line, while others choose to be unarmed. That's their right. But it's also their right to make different choices.
DeleteMikeb, you keep trying to bring in weapons that are of a different class from what the Second Amendment protects.
NO
DeleteNow prove your idiotic assertion that not having a PC violates the 1st amendment.
I guess the government must supply a computer to every American, otherwise their free speech will be violated.
Easy to see why most on this site call you a lying criminal coward. I think you are just nuts and as stupid as people come.
Anonymous, when you lie about what I said, what are you trying to accomplish? My point all along has been that we can't ban the tools that are used to exercise a right. That does not imply that we must hand out such tools to everyone, paid for by taxes. We simply can ban such tools.
DeleteThis is why arguing with you is tedious. You twist words into what you wanted me to say, rather than addressing what I actually said.
I use your own words which you then deny. As usual for the site proven criminal lying coward.
DeleteKeep proving me correct, it makes me laugh.