If you knew an assault weapons ban would save one child's life...

[Cecilie1200]

The purpose of automobiles is transportation, what is the purpose of guns?
It seems the NRA's argument is that guns and the killing of citizens are tradeoffs. A certain amount of innocent people's deaths are the price we must pay for our right to have guns.

Some folks, when speaking for increased restrictions on guns, have argued that the primary function of the federal government is to ensure the safety of its citizens...

studies have shown that increased restrictions on guns for law-abiding citizens has resulted in more deaths for law-abiding citizens...

other studies have shown that the federal government's imposition of fuel-economy standards has resulted in thousands of deaths in traffic accidents that would not have occurred had the passengers been riding in cars with a higher mass...

As I said it's trade offs. If we want fuel economy we might have to make cars lighter. Tradeoffs. If we want guns we must accept a certain amount of killing, accidental and otherwise. I just hope the ones that do the killing for noteriety, don't believe they gain more noteriety by killing children than politicians.

It's not a matter of "if we want guns, we must accept a certain amount of killing", you troglodytic mouthbreather. It's a matter of "if we want FREEDOM and LIBERTY, we're going to have to accept that some people are going to use it to harm others", and while we as a society must find a way to minimize that, the correct way is NOT to make ourselves into slaves.

By the way, Noah Webster, the word is "notoriety". If you're going to try to impress us with your vocabulary, you might at least try to sound like you've heard and used the word before.

 

[lukelk]

..or another flip..


If we knew that banning blacks from owning guns would stop much of the vast majority of American gun murders they commit in cold blood, why didn't we do it yesterday?

The racist speaks

 

[TNHarley]

How you like them poll results Jimbo?

 

[TNHarley]

..or another flip..


If we knew that banning blacks from owning guns would stop much of the vast majority of American gun murders they commit in cold blood, why didn't we do it yesterday?

The racist speaks

Statistics are racist? Maybe you just can't handle the truth. Granted, the criminals wouldn't turn in their guns. Just the law-abiding blacks

 

[Ernie S.]

..or another flip..


If we knew that banning blacks from owning guns would stop much of the vast majority of American gun murders they commit in cold blood, why didn't we do it yesterday?

The racist speaks

What's racist to point out that blacks are 7 times more likely to be murdered or commit a murder than whites?

Apparently, blacks hate blacks far more than SniperFire, me or other white folk do.

 

[regent]

Some folks, when speaking for increased restrictions on guns, have argued that the primary function of the federal government is to ensure the safety of its citizens...

studies have shown that increased restrictions on guns for law-abiding citizens has resulted in more deaths for law-abiding citizens...

other studies have shown that the federal government's imposition of fuel-economy standards has resulted in thousands of deaths in traffic accidents that would not have occurred had the passengers been riding in cars with a higher mass...

As I said it's trade offs. If we want fuel economy we might have to make cars lighter. Tradeoffs. If we want guns we must accept a certain amount of killing, accidental and otherwise. I just hope the ones that do the killing for noteriety, don't believe they gain more noteriety by killing children than politicians.

It's not a matter of "if we want guns, we must accept a certain amount of killing", you troglodytic mouthbreather. It's a matter of "if we want FREEDOM and LIBERTY, we're going to have to accept that some people are going to use it to harm others", and while we as a society must find a way to minimize that, the correct way is NOT to make ourselves into slaves.

By the way, Noah Webster, the word is "notoriety". If you're going to try to impress us with your vocabulary, you might at least try to sound like you've heard and used the word before.

So do you accept the premise that allowing guns in the general public will result in a certain amount of killings?

 

[LibertyLemming]

As I said it's trade offs. If we want fuel economy we might have to make cars lighter. Tradeoffs. If we want guns we must accept a certain amount of killing, accidental and otherwise. I just hope the ones that do the killing for noteriety, don't believe they gain more noteriety by killing children than politicians.

It's not a matter of "if we want guns, we must accept a certain amount of killing", you troglodytic mouthbreather. It's a matter of "if we want FREEDOM and LIBERTY, we're going to have to accept that some people are going to use it to harm others", and while we as a society must find a way to minimize that, the correct way is NOT to make ourselves into slaves.

By the way, Noah Webster, the word is "notoriety". If you're going to try to impress us with your vocabulary, you might at least try to sound like you've heard and used the word before.

So do you accept the premise that allowing guns in the general public will result in a certain amount of killings?

The premise should state that "allowing people in the general public will result in a certain amount of killings".

 

[bripat9643]

..or another flip..


If we knew that banning blacks from owning guns would stop much of the vast majority of American gun murders they commit in cold blood, why didn't we do it yesterday?

The racist speaks

That's the logical conclusion based on the liberal premise that stopping gun deaths justifies tossing the Bill of Rights on the scrap heap.

 

[bripat9643]

..or another flip..


If we knew that banning blacks from owning guns would stop much of the vast majority of American gun murders they commit in cold blood, why didn't we do it yesterday?

The racist speaks

Statistics are racist? Maybe you just can't handle the truth. Granted, the criminals wouldn't turn in their guns. Just the law-abiding blacks

Liberal Dictionary:
==========================
Hate - truth

 

[LordBrownTrout]

27 "people", so far, would kill a child rather than stop giving guns to crooks, illegals, terrorists, the mentally ill.

But, not surprisingly, they'd be against aborting a blob of protoplasm.

How much of our population is this sick? How many would kill a little kid just so they could sell assault rifles to the scum of our population?

Sniff sniff. Of course you bought this flawed logic. I can definitely see the disrespect for life on your part as you refer to it as a blob.

 

[Politico]

Sorry son. If you point a weapon it is to shoot. Brandishing for the purpose of determent will land you in jail.

No it's to stop.

Well you have at it then.

The rest of you don't do it.

27 "people", so far, would kill a child rather than stop giving guns to crooks, illegals, terrorists, the mentally ill.

But, not surprisingly, they'd be against aborting a blob of protoplasm.

How much of our population is this sick? How many would kill a little kid just so they could sell assault rifles to the scum of our population?

You are truly a freaking iiot.

 

[daveman]

Sorry son. If you point a weapon it is to shoot. Brandishing for the purpose of determent will land you in jail.

Doubtful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I said it's trade offs. If we want fuel economy we might have to make cars lighter. Tradeoffs. If we want guns we must accept a certain amount of killing, accidental and otherwise. I just hope the ones that do the killing for noteriety, don't believe they gain more noteriety by killing children than politicians.

It's not a matter of "if we want guns, we must accept a certain amount of killing", you troglodytic mouthbreather. It's a matter of "if we want FREEDOM and LIBERTY, we're going to have to accept that some people are going to use it to harm others", and while we as a society must find a way to minimize that, the correct way is NOT to make ourselves into slaves.

By the way, Noah Webster, the word is "notoriety". If you're going to try to impress us with your vocabulary, you might at least try to sound like you've heard and used the word before.

So do you accept the premise that allowing guns in the general public will result in a certain amount of killings?

Dumbfuck, I accept the reality that allowing a certain number of human beings in the general public will result in killings. That "certain number" would be two or more. And frankly, if there was only one human being left, that crazy bastard would probably kill himself.

Try to grasp this with both of your functioning brain cells, Mensa Boy: human beings are dangerous, destructive creatures. It's built into our natures. It isn't projected onto us by the presence of inanimate objects.

There are two ways in which to make a human being completely safe and harmless to others: kill him or enslave him. And only the first one is 100% guaranteed.

 

[regent]

It's not a matter of "if we want guns, we must accept a certain amount of killing", you troglodytic mouthbreather. It's a matter of "if we want FREEDOM and LIBERTY, we're going to have to accept that some people are going to use it to harm others", and while we as a society must find a way to minimize that, the correct way is NOT to make ourselves into slaves.

By the way, Noah Webster, the word is "notoriety". If you're going to try to impress us with your vocabulary, you might at least try to sound like you've heard and used the word before.

So do you accept the premise that allowing guns in the general public will result in a certain amount of killings?

Dumbfuck, I accept the reality that allowing a certain number of human beings in the general public will result in killings. That "certain number" would be two or more. And frankly, if there was only one human being left, that crazy bastard would probably kill himself.

Try to grasp this with both of your functioning brain cells, Mensa Boy: human beings are dangerous, destructive creatures. It's built into our natures. It isn't projected onto us by the presence of inanimate objects.

There are two ways in which to make a human being completely safe and harmless to others: kill him or enslave him. And only the first one is 100% guaranteed.

Well if that's your concept of human beings then you should insult and villify all you have contact with. Knowingly or unknowingly you have hit upon one of the core values that separate liberalism from conservatism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So do you accept the premise that allowing guns in the general public will result in a certain amount of killings?

Dumbfuck, I accept the reality that allowing a certain number of human beings in the general public will result in killings. That "certain number" would be two or more. And frankly, if there was only one human being left, that crazy bastard would probably kill himself.

Try to grasp this with both of your functioning brain cells, Mensa Boy: human beings are dangerous, destructive creatures. It's built into our natures. It isn't projected onto us by the presence of inanimate objects.

There are two ways in which to make a human being completely safe and harmless to others: kill him or enslave him. And only the first one is 100% guaranteed.

Well if that's your concept of human beings then you should insult and villify all you have contact with. Knowingly or unknowingly you have hit upon one of the core values that separate liberalism from conservatism.

OF COURSE that's my concept of human beings, you knob . . . because that's what human beings ARE. If that's NOT what you think of humanity, then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't be let out-of-doors without a babysitter. And if you somehow think recognizing that human beings as a species are dangerous requires me to "hate and vilify" (again, if you're going to try to impress me with your vocabulary, you need to at least ATTEMPT to sound like you didn't just look at your word-a-day toilet paper) everyone I meet, then you're not just a moron, you're a retarded child who should be institutionalized to keep him safe from his own extreme naivete.

And I'm well aware that one of the core differences between leftists and conservatives is that leftists are a bunch of pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic adolescents mentally trapped in the floaty pink drug haze of the 60s (whether they actually lived through the 60s or not) and believing that humanity is perfectible and cosmic justice is achievable, and conservatives are realists who understand that all humans contain the seeds of evil right next to the seeds of good, that some humans are going to choose evil no matter what society does, and that life is always going to contain some things that just suck beyond the telling of it.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes regent we understand you feel morally and intellectually superior to us and therefore should be in charge of all our futures. Problem is, you aren't and we don't give our consent.

 

[Clementine]

And if you knew that one good guy having an assault weapon could save dozens of children from a nutjob, would you change your stand? As long as the bad guys have guns, all the good people need to have the same. Otherwise, we are merely targets.

 

[saveliberty]

I have said it before, Obama is just creating even softer targets in the gun free zones.

 

[regent]

Dumbfuck, I accept the reality that allowing a certain number of human beings in the general public will result in killings. That "certain number" would be two or more. And frankly, if there was only one human being left, that crazy bastard would probably kill himself.

Try to grasp this with both of your functioning brain cells, Mensa Boy: human beings are dangerous, destructive creatures. It's built into our natures. It isn't projected onto us by the presence of inanimate objects.

There are two ways in which to make a human being completely safe and harmless to others: kill him or enslave him. And only the first one is 100% guaranteed.

Well if that's your concept of human beings then you should insult and villify all you have contact with. Knowingly or unknowingly you have hit upon one of the core values that separate liberalism from conservatism.

OF COURSE that's my concept of human beings, you knob . . . because that's what human beings ARE. If that's NOT what you think of humanity, then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't be let out-of-doors without a babysitter. And if you somehow think recognizing that human beings as a species are dangerous requires me to "hate and vilify" (again, if you're going to try to impress me with your vocabulary, you need to at least ATTEMPT to sound like you didn't just look at your word-a-day toilet paper) everyone I meet, then you're not just a moron, you're a retarded child who should be institutionalized to keep him safe from his own extreme naivete.

And I'm well aware that one of the core differences between leftists and conservatives is that leftists are a bunch of pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic adolescents mentally trapped in the floaty pink drug haze of the 60s (whether they actually lived through the 60s or not) and believing that humanity is perfectible and cosmic justice is achievable, and conservatives are realists who understand that all humans contain the seeds of evil right next to the seeds of good, that some humans are going to choose evil no matter what society does, and that life is always going to contain some things that just suck beyond the telling of it.

No, seriously how do you feel about liberals?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

..or another flip..


If we knew that banning blacks from owning guns would stop much of the vast majority of American gun murders they commit in cold blood, why didn't we do it yesterday?

The racist speaks

When someone calls another person a racist without just cause makes the caller a racist.