Obama losing his gun control campaign

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by thatguy

Wirelessly posted



That's a weak argument. For all you know those were gifts or they were left for common use in the house. If he stabbed his mother with a kitchen knife would you say that he stole it from her?

The law already says that a felon can not buy guns. Why should they be allowed to buy used guns?

A felon is not allowed to own, possesses, or but ANY gun, that is already against the law.

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Dude I honestly gave up on you a long time ago. I don't know what prompted me to get back into with you. But you can consider this our last. So, if you're going to continue to be obtuse don't bother replying to my posts.

You asked for proof. I gave it to you. You rejected it and instead made up your own facts. That's called being obtuse.

It is a fact that those guns weren't his. It's a fact that since he shot the person that owned the guns he had no intention of returning them to the owner. If he didn't borrow them, and he certainly couldn't buy them, the only logical thing left is that he stole them. Try using some deductive reasoning. Do you have to have some news source tell you everything in order to come to logical conclusions?

So you are going to ignore the FACT that it would have been completely legal for Lanzas mother to give him the weapon he used to kill everyone except himself?

Your pretzel logic doesn't mean that the only option is that Lanza stole the guns. What he did with them after he got them doesn't affect how he got them, no matter how much you want it to.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by thatguy

Wirelessly posted



That's a weak argument. For all you know those were gifts or they were left for common use in the house. If he stabbed his mother with a kitchen knife would you say that he stole it from her?

The law already says that a felon can not buy guns. Why should they be allowed to buy used guns?

A felon is not allowed to own, possesses, or buy ANY gun, that is already against the law.

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by tog

So you are going to ignore the FACT that it would have been completely legal for Lanzas mother to give him the weapon he used to kill everyone except himself?

Your pretzel logic doesn't mean that the only option is that Lanza stole the guns. What he did with them after he got them doesn't affect how he got them, no matter how much you want it to.

Why do you ignore the fact he shot the legal owner?

I forgot you're OBTUSE GUY

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by thatguy

Wirelessly posted

BTW, that AR 15 would have been a long gun. CT has no age restriction for possessing long arms.


Summary of Gun Legislation

There would be nothing illegal about his mother giving him that rifle.

He didn't want to wait the required 14 day wait.

Adam Lanza attempted, failed to purchase his own gun, sources say | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

He didn't want to wait the required 14 day wait.

Adam Lanza attempted, failed to purchase his own gun, sources say | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

There is nothing in the regulations that says a person who was denied at a gun shop can't possess long arms. Psy and others have claimed that Lanza was in illegal possession of the arms he used and that the only way he could have gotten them was to steal them. The FACT that there is no age restriction on long arms means that his possessing the AR 15 was not in and of itself illegal. Additionally it would not have been illegal for him to have been given the AR 15 as a gift.

[BOP]

Originally Posted by GURPS

people are brain washed ....... they don't want to seem un-reasonable, just what the media / progressive paint this as


uncaring unfeeling ....... ITS FOR THE CHILDREN ........


you heartless bastard ..........





IMHO - I would rather lose a child, as gut wrenching as that would be, then ask others - selfishly on my part - to give up their RIGHTS

That's because you're not a woman. Too many women would shred the constitution in a hot New York minute if they thought it was FOR THE CHILDREN.

Okay, not exactly for THE children...for THEIR children.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by BOP

That's because you're not a woman. Too many women would shred the constitution in a hot New York minute if they thought it was FOR THE CHILDREN.

Okay, not exactly for THE children...for THEIR children.

But it is NOT safer for the children! Any woman's kids are SAFER if there is a good guy with a gun about. They just are. That the GOP can NOT make this argument, this effortless argument, is really not much fun.

[BOP]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

The big misunderstanding here is that noone wants to take away your guns or your right to own them. PERIOD ! The desire is to keep military style weapons out of the hands of citizens that dont need them.

It doesnt get any simplier then that. Noone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment from the constitution, delete it, scratch thru it or deny you your right to own a gun.

Yes they do. They know they can't ban and confiscate ALL guns, so they're going to ban (and ultimately confiscate) as many guns as they can get away with, then they're going to make owning the guns that are left so expensive and so onerous that only criminals will own guns.

They actually don't care about criminals owning guns, because libs are hot for criminals. Until the criminals practice their trade on them, at which time, they become conservatives.

[GURPS (Premo)]

Shortcut:

This message is hidden because thatguy is on your ignore list.