Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

Tsing Tao · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

If they were home schooled every one of those children would be alive today.

Perhaps we should ban schools, since people mistake them for target ranges?

We should ban public schools. But that's a whole different argument.

Lucrum · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from RedDuke:

Then they immediately need to start a petition to allow bazookas for citizens, since AR15 and the like will not help in such situations.

Back in the 80's the Afghans defeated the second largest super power at the time with not much more than AK 47's and RPG's.

Lucrum · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from RedDuke:

Hard core facts and opinions are in totally different buckets.

Still waiting for for at least one real reason for semi automatic rifles and high capacity clips are needed for citizens. Come on guys, give at least 1 real reason.

Self/home/government tyranny defense.

Lucrum · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from RedDuke:

I misused a word, meant to say modified.

Why insults all of a sudden? 2nd amendment does not talk about bazookas, why not allowing them?

2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. It is up to the government and the supreme court of the land to define what constitutes as Arms.

Bazookas didn't exist at the time. But then no specific type of "arms" were mentioned one way or the other.

Lucrum · Dec 20, 2012

So...who has the stats on how many mass shooters purchased their weapons at a gun show and submitted to no background check because of it?

It seems to me there is a tremendous amount of emotion involved in some of anti gun folks around here. Twenty kids and 6 teachers being murdered is certainly no trivial event.

BUT to help maybe keep things in perspective. On average world wide 21,000 children die EVERY day. !6,000 EVERY day from hunger alone.

BSAM · Dec 20, 2012

Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

I think it's becoming more and more clear who is full of shit about gun control.

RedDuke · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

He's a fanatic. No amount of facts or logic will persuade him.

Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or obsessive enthusiasm.

That pretty much describes you guys. I am a supporter of 2nd amendment and understand that certain class of weapons have no real need in hand of citizens.

You on the other hand cling to your beliefs that you need military grade weapons to defend yourself from come unknown futuristic threat. Aliens? Red army invasion?

RedDuke · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from Trader666:

Because you're being an obtuse, disingenuous moron by posting as if your pointy headed, feel-good "ideas" should trump the Second Amendment, while claiming you support it. I told you its intent and either you've ignored that or can't grasp it but either way, your "thinking" is clearly at odds with it.

When you have no real arguments, I guess spitting out the insults is all you good for.

RedDuke · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from Tsing Tao:

The clean water is provided by the town, not the federal government. The government has regulations designed to keep people and companies from polluting water, but that can be handled at the state level, since all of the land resides at that level anyway. As for food being safe....LOL. I'm in the consumer packaged goods industry. I can tell you first hand how inept and bloated the FDA is. The Federal government is inefficient on every possible level. It is efficient ONLY at national defense. THAT'S IT. Even then I'd argue use of the word "efficient", but no one can do it better.

This is a joke, right? You're joking. You've got to be.

I made a point that the government is not just good for national defense. So, if one state decides not to pollute water and air, and the other one does not give a shit, is it Ok by your logic?

Then we might as well cease the union and each state can become its own country. Do you want such scenario?

Joking about what?

RedDuke · Dec 20, 2012

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Complete hypothetical, with no evidence whatsoever to back your statement.

It is called common logic, lesser deadly weapon with a smaller clip capacity = a better chance to disarm the shooter. Not sure what is so complex about this formula.