Our thoughts and prayers are not enough.....

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
CQUueW7UAAA0hnH.png
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Moral Equivalence ... Obama is a Moron, but I repeat myself


Mines Unsafe
Roads Unsafe
SeatBelts

all FIXED with BETTER DESIGNS / Design Improvements

.... did the Firearms FAIL to Function ?

in that case a new design is called for, otherwise the devices functioned as designed - Click - POW
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Moral Equivalence ... Obama is a Moron, but I repeat myself


Mines Unsafe
Roads Unsafe
SeatBelts

all FIXED with BETTER DESIGNS / Design Improvements

.... did the Firearms FAIL to Function ?

in that case a new design is called for, otherwise the devices functioned as designed - Click - POW

I think he's telling you he wants to change the design - of America. He said it in 2007-8, and he's never done anything else. He wants to fundamentally change America - his words, not mine.

That quote is the same thing. he wants to change the design of a free population that has the ability to form a militia and overthrow their government. That's what had just happened by those who made that a separately-identified limit on government, and they expected that over time it would become controversial enough that they needed to ensure it was self-evident.

Every time a politician says they don't want to take guns from hunters and sportsmen, they are trying to change what people understand the meaning of the second amendment to be. They want you to think it's about hunting and target shooting.

He wants to change the design all right, but not of guns.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The notion that we should blindly follow this moron is what really doesn't make sense.

His speech provided nothing. No substance, no specific laws or anything that would have prevented this. You know why? Because he chose to jump out and use this as a political stance before getting actual facts. (hence his "This is something we should politicize," statement) At that time, he didn't even know who the person was, so how in the hell can he have any idea if "tougher" background laws would have stopped him?

There's a reason he lacked specific details in his speech...because he has no idea on how to stop these things. He never mentioned the 2A, instead, lumping guns with other random safety issues. He mentioned how many guns are in the country (FYI, the FBI even recognized the surge of gun purchases last year, with a pretty low crime rate considering the sheer number of guns), but no mention on how to make that many guns disappear.

Bottom line, we don't know how the shooter got his weapons, if he was disqualified, or went through a background check, so how can he go on stage and propose "common sense gun legislation" without knowing the details?

Because of people like nhboy.
 

PrchJrkr

Long Haired Country Boy
Ad Free Experience
Patron
The notion that we should blindly follow this moron is what really doesn't make sense.

His speech provided nothing. No substance, no specific laws or anything that would have prevented this. You know why? Because he chose to jump out and use this as a political stance before getting actual facts. (hence his "This is something we should politicize," statement) At that time, he didn't even know who the person was, so how in the hell can he have any idea if "tougher" background laws would have stopped him?

There's a reason he lacked specific details in his speech...because he has no idea on how to stop these things. He never mentioned the 2A, instead, lumping guns with other random safety issues. He mentioned how many guns are in the country (FYI, the FBI even recognized the surge of gun purchases last year, with a pretty low crime rate considering the sheer number of guns), but no mention on how to make that many guns disappear.

Bottom line, we don't know how the shooter got his weapons, if he was disqualified, or went through a background check, so how can he go on stage and propose "common sense gun legislation" without knowing the details?

Because of people like nhboy.

:clap:
 

BigBlue

New Member
The notion that someone who already has the mindset of killing and maiming won't act on it if he doesn't have a gun to do it with is just ridiculous.

The problem isn't the guns. The problem is disgruntled, damaged people who can and will come up with other ways of carrying out this mission.

Okay so lets make their mission harder !!!
 

BigBlue

New Member
Moral Equivalence ... Obama is a Moron, but I repeat myself


Mines Unsafe
Roads Unsafe
SeatBelts

all FIXED with BETTER DESIGNS / Design Improvements

.... did the Firearms FAIL to Function ?

in that case a new design is called for, otherwise the devices functioned as designed - Click - POW


Thank You for proving what a real phucking asswipe you really are .I always knew it put it helps when you put it out on display like you did in that post.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
The notion that someone who already has the mindset of killing and maiming won't act on it if he doesn't have a gun to do it with is just ridiculous.

The problem isn't the guns. The problem is disgruntled, damaged people who can and will come up with other ways of carrying out this mission.

I am a gun owner and I say let's make it harder for the disgruntled damaged people to kill so easy. Make the crazies come up with those other ways
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I am a gun owner and I say let's make it harder for the disgruntled damaged people to kill so easy. Make the crazies come up with those other ways

Please square that with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, I know no rights are absolute. However, what would be your criteria that would also not challenge the text above.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Thank You for proving what a real phucking asswipe you really are .I always knew it put it helps when you put it out on display like you did in that post.

You have a problem with the truth?
Guns shoot
Knives cut
Fire burns
Guillotines chop
Bombs boom
If I pulled a trigger and it made bubbles I'd be pissed.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
His speech provided nothing. No substance, no specific laws or anything that would have prevented this. You know why? Because he chose to jump out and use this as a political stance before getting actual facts. (hence his "This is something we should politicize," statement) At that time, he didn't even know who the person was, so how in the hell can he have any idea if "tougher" background laws would have stopped him?

:yay:


but it Felt Good
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Thank You for proving what a real phucking asswipe you really are .I always knew it put it helps when you put it out on display like you did in that post.

sweet cheeks;

please explain how the firearms in question require design improvements .... because that is what you are talking about when YOU discuss Mine or Road safety

seatbelts = design improvement
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Please square that with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, I know no rights are absolute. However, what would be your criteria that would also not challenge the text above.

I didn't think you could.
 
Top