01-21-2013 10:38 AM
01-21-2013 10:40 AM
Davo17 wrote:hey bonesmoker...i dont think i wil let a douche like you decide when and if my rights are adequqte. take note you smug fuker.
the term liberal is ironic on an orwellian scale.
The term "conservative" seems to often be defined by those who resort to childish insults when their arguments are exposed as illogical and invalid.
01-21-2013 10:41 AM
Davo17 wrote:no, this tragedy was 20 years ago...but the fact that its the same solution libs are purposing on an expanded basis makes it topical.
this case sadly is not unique...the simple math is it takes a good guy with a gun to counter a bad guy with a gun.
yes of course, the only logical answer to guns, is more guns better get out there, and spread your message to pretty much every single country in the world, they've all obviously got it wrong
01-21-2013 10:42 AM
Davo17 wrote:hey bonesmoker...i dont think i wil let a douche like you decide when and if my rights are adequqte. take note you smug fuker.
the term liberal is ironic on an orwellian scale.
what rights of yours do people want to take away?
01-21-2013 10:44 AM
guido61 wrote:
Davo17 wrote:hey bonesmoker...i dont think i wil let a douche like you decide when and if my rights are adequqte. take note you smug fuker.
the term liberal is ironic on an orwellian scale.
The term "conservative" seems to often be defined by those who resort to childish insults when their arguments are exposed as illogical and invalid.
guido61 wrote:
Davo17 wrote:hey bonesmoker...i dont think i wil let a douche like you decide when and if my rights are adequqte. take note you smug fuker.
the term liberal is ironic on an orwellian scale.
The term "conservative" seems to often be defined by those who resort to childish insults when their arguments are exposed as illogical and invalid.
please, gun control is based on arbitrary factors like gun appearance, and strict lib gun laws around cities prove the legislation they want to adapt is the definition of ineffective. now they wanna adapt the same bs on a federal level...good luck with that.
only the law abiding citizen suffers.
01-21-2013 10:46 AM
Bowe wrote:
yes of course, the only logical answer to guns, is more guns better get out there, and spread your message to pretty much every single country in the world, they've all obviously got it wrong
Conservative logic:
Problem: US has some of the most liberal gun laws in the world and one of the highest gun-crime rates in the world?
Solution: More guns.
Problem: US has the most "free-market" based health care system in the world and the highest health-care costs in the world without seeing better outcomes?
Solution: More "free-market" health care.
Lewis Carroll couldn't write this stuff....
01-21-2013 10:48 AM
Bowe wrote:what rights of yours do people want to take away?
Apparently Davo has never read the 2nd Amendment or any of the SC rulings concerning the amendment and falsely believes that owning a gun that can fire off 100 rounds in a few seconds is a "right".
01-21-2013 10:51 AM
Bowe wrote:
Davo17 wrote:no, this tragedy was 20 years ago...but the fact that its the same solution libs are purposing on an expanded basis makes it topical.
this case sadly is not unique...the simple math is it takes a good guy with a gun to counter a bad guy with a gun.
yes of course, the only logical answer to guns, is more guns better get out there, and spread your message to pretty much every single country in the world, they've all obviously got it wrong
not so fast turbo. id never presume to know what other countries should do...id think a local solution there would be more effective. although notably in response to shooting at schoool, israel decades ago started arming the public...which forced terrorost palestinians to use different methods...like bombs and rockets.
here, we already have widespread gun ownership...and more importantly...the right to keep and bear them
the problem with you freaks is you are fine with curtailing others rights. u arent even an american and yet you feel the need to poke your nose in. libs are statist authoritarian freaks.
01-21-2013 10:52 AM - edited 01-21-2013 10:55 AM
Davo17 wrote:
please, gun control is based on arbitrary factors like gun appearance, and strict lib gun laws around cities prove the legislation they want to adapt is the definition of ineffective. now they wanna adapt the same bs on a federal level...good luck with that.
only the law abiding citizen suffers.
in what way do the law-abiding citizens suffer? Why do you keep repeating the tired rhetoric but refuse to answer the pertinent questions? No one suffers by not being able to own a gun that can fire off 100 rounds in a few seconds. No one.
As far as city legislation goes---how smart to you have to be to understand that having strict gun laws inside a city surrounded by an entire nation that doesn't have them will be ineffective? Of course they would have limited effect.
01-21-2013 10:53 AM
guido61 wrote:
Bowe wrote:
yes of course, the only logical answer to guns, is more guns better get out there, and spread your message to pretty much every single country in the world, they've all obviously got it wrongConservative logic:
Problem: US has some of the most liberal gun laws in the world and one of the highest gun-crime rates in the world?
Solution: More guns.
Problem: US has the most "free-market" based health care system in the world and the highest health-care costs in the world without seeing better outcomes?
Solution: More "free-market" health care.
Lewis Carroll couldn't write this stuff....
why would i let a wide eyed liberal define conservatism?
01-21-2013 10:55 AM
Davo17 wrote:the problem with you freaks is you are fine with curtailing others rights. u arent even an american and yet you feel the need to poke your nose in. libs are statist authoritarian freaks.
Still you keep repeating this nonsense without being able to answer the question about how any of the proposed legislation would curtail any right you have to protect yourself with a gun. You can't do it because it doesn't exist.
As far as "statist authoritarian freaks" go regarding political ideology and parties? It's the Republicans/conservatives who side with Big Government on virtually every court case concerning the Bill of Rights---EXCEPT the 2nd amendment. But on all other amendments, they LOVE their Big Government Intrusion!
01-21-2013 11:00 AM
guido61 wrote:
Bowe wrote:what rights of yours do people want to take away?
Apparently Davo has never read the 2nd Amendment or any of the SC rulings concerning the amendment and falsely believes that owning a gun that can fire off 100 rounds in a few seconds is a "right".
full auto weapons are already heavily regulated and rarely used in crimes.
my point on arbitrary infringements stands, son.
01-21-2013 11:03 AM - edited 01-21-2013 11:06 AM
Davo17 wrote:full auto weapons are already heavily regulated and rarely used in crimes.
And why do you think that is, dumbnut?
And yet, somehow and miraculously, we are able to heavily regulate these weapons without infringing upon your right to protect yourself with a gun. Go figure!
01-21-2013 11:24 AM
guido61 wrote:
Davo17 wrote:full auto weapons are already heavily regulated and rarely used in crimes.
And why do you think that is, dumbnut?
And yet, somehow and miraculously, we are able to heavily regulate these weapons without infringing upon your right to protect yourself with a gun. Go figure!
because they are rare and expensive. not because they are a model of regulation you idiot. you are inferring some major points. dont.
sounds like you only support protection for the elite, hypocrite.
01-21-2013 11:28 AM
This is pretty good reason not to vote for republican. I think maybe they have some problem understanding simple concepts.
01-21-2013 11:30 AM
Admit it- hasn't this happened to all of us at one time or another?
And another thing: if only that cop who stood by and watched this guy kill this woman's mother had had a gun...
01-21-2013 11:44 AM
Davo17 wrote:
because they are rare and expensive.
Why do you think they are rare and expensive???? I know it's asking a lot of you, but THINK will you??? Instead of just repeating talking points you don't even understand?
01-21-2013 01:52 PM
guido61 wrote:
Davo17 wrote:because they are rare and expensive.
Why do you think they are rare and expensive???? I know it's asking a lot of you, but THINK will you??? Instead of just repeating talking points you don't even understand?
because they were rarely wanted or used in crimes even before requiring a tax stamp...i think its because they were novelties and after 86 you couldnt get a new one.
the tax stamp upon introduction was afairly still but the current nfa tax stamp is quite cheap...there was never a mechanism for inflation written into the law.
01-21-2013 03:54 PM
Davo17 wrote:
because they were rarely wanted or used in crimes even before requiring a tax stamp...i think its because they were novelties and after 86 you couldnt get a new one.
Exactly. Goverment regulation made them rare and uncommon and undesirable. Same thing could be accomplished with assault rifles although, clearly, the fact that we didn't jump on it sooner the way we did the full-autos will make it more difficult.
But even if it takes decades, it's still worth pursuing. Why? Because they give great advantage to the bad guys and virtually no advantage to the good guys.
Your right to defend yourself with a gun would remain intact and uninfringed.
01-21-2013 03:58 PM
Has anyone invented the firearm equivalent of the Wangcaster yet?
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC