arma virumque cano (et alia)
“@AntarianRani: “@EndNRA: "@NorthWolf28 ... RT: 2A." just implement it. #gunsense wants the "well regulated" part. pic.twitter.com/8ULFvJmRbU””— Lady Red (@HaveAnOpinion2) November 16, 2014
“@AntarianRani: “@EndNRA: "@NorthWolf28 ... RT: 2A." just implement it. #gunsense wants the "well regulated" part. pic.twitter.com/8ULFvJmRbU””
So you have stopped wanting to ban so-called "assault weapons," and now want to ban "assault people," Mikeb?Have you belatedly dropped your ridiculous "guns do more harm than good" mantra, to replace it with "people do moire harm than good"?The poster seems to have misidentified the "stupid" folks.
Still trying to compensate, Kurtie?It's not working.
Oops, Mikeb--I meant " . . . people do more harm than good," rather than "moire." Sorry--was less than fully awake.
The objective of the state in arms control is to control the behaviour of PEOPLE when it comes to weapons. The goal is to keep ordinary civilians (that means YOU) have no need and cannot be trusted with professional-grade weapons (such as the M-16 or "AR-15" for all you wannabees who aren't trusted with real firepower), which is designed, manufactured, and should be reserved for......professionals, away from these professional tools. I say this (in anonymity do to the nature of my occupation) as someone who is entrusted with YOUR very safety, that ordinary civilians shouldn't be allowed to play with the big boy toys.
"The goal is to keep ordinary civilians (that means YOU) have no need and cannot be trusted with professional-grade weapons (such as the M-16 or "AR-15" for all you wannabees who aren't trusted with real firepower), which is designed, manufactured, and should be reserved for......professionals, away from these professional tools. I say this (in anonymity do to the nature of my occupation) as someone who is entrusted with YOUR very safety, that ordinary civilians shouldn't be allowed to play with the big boy toys." I think you have a misunderstanding as to who works for whom. Fortunately, most citizens have the freedom to purchase and possess these "professional" tools. As they have since the country was formed. If you're having such trouble trusting your employer, maybe you should consider another line of work. It will likely do wonders for your stress level. As for your discomfort regarding "ordinary" citizens having "big boy toys", I'll just have to quote Col. Cooper as I enjoy doing, "I've got mine"
Yes you do like quoting that gun loon.A tank, have you got yours, and why?An atomic weapon, have you got yours, and why?Are their no limitations SS?
GKO45--a pale immitation of a glorious troll.
"Are their no limitations SS?" Well Anon, I was commenting on GKO45's comment which specifically mentioned rifles. It even mentioned a particular model. Gun control advocates always seem to like to items such as tanks and nukes. And in reality, the tank itself isn't illegal to own. The tank gun however is another matter. And its also very telling that they get so worked up over an individual weapon such as a rifle. Something much less than a tank or a nuke. Even various gun control groups have admitted that rifles make up a very small percentage of gun violence. So lets stick what GKO and I were commenting on and not get sidetracked. And lets throw in a bit of wisdom regarding rifles,“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle
I was commenting on your quote from Cooper (I've got mine) but you know that and are just being your typical deceitful self.
I'm afraid I cant afford the fuel to run a tank, much less the vehicle itself. Would be fun though. Tanks themselves aren't illegal, its just the main gun that comes under legal restrictions. Don't need a nuke, a rifle is much easier to carry, and seemingly just as scary to some. But then, I'm also one of those lofty professionals that GKO speaks of, so there shouldn't be any worries. The only difference between him and me is that I trust my employers, namely the citizenry.
You trust people with nukes? The same idiots that keep killing people with their guns because of their stupidity? Yes, no doubt you do. You have proven what a lying idiot your are.
He lied about what?
He lies all the time, proven over and over again.
Wow so no more calls for limiting magazine size, banning scary looking guns, or limiting purchases to one a month or whatever? You are giving up on all of that?
When Kurt wrote that it was pretty stupid. Now repeating it is even more so. No gun control laws are about the gun, they're all about the people. This nonsense (claiming that we're afraid of guns or obsessed with them or blaming them) is nothing more than a straw man that you guys have repeated countless times until you started to believe your own bullshit.
The poster purports to "debunk the myth" of "'activists' [being] pissed at guns," by showing several legislative goals of "gun control" that are restrictions on people, rather than guns.Anon and I have pointed out several other regulatory goals of the "shall be infringed" crowd that are specifically on the guns themselves.That ain't "pretty stupid"--it's an effective retort to the "pretty stupid" poster. And so far, you seem to have nothing along the lines of an answer to that.I predict you'll never find an effective one.
Kurt, It's the gun rights clowns who came up with the genius slogan that guns don't kill people. We're responding to that.
Kurt, It's the gun rights [defenders] who came up with the genius slogan that guns don't kill people. We're responding to that. Should I take that to mean that you disagree with the statement that guns don't kill people? Would that not mean that you do indeed blame the guns? So you won't be changing your mantra to "people do more harm than good"?
Just as suspected, its not so much gun control you want, it is people control. Is that right?orlin sellers