NBC now admitting that no assault weapons used at Sandy Hook. HANDGUNS ONLY

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder if the OP will ever address my concerns with the accuracy of his claim?

 

[Lakhota]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vn_PSJsl0LQ]Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

I guess some people just can't figure out when America tells them it's had enough. I guess they figure they can just keep saying stupid things and it will all go away.



Source: Cleveland School massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the Chinese copy of the Kalashnikov AK-47.

But, but, but, you've your head up your butt.

Keep opposing all measures of gun control and show the world what you really care about!

Criminal control.

"The gunman, Patrick Purdy, who had a long criminal history, shot and killed five schoolchildren, and wounded 29 other schoolchildren and one teacher, before committing suicide."

Keep working on those sentences!

What law do you support that Purdy would have obeyed?

 

[daveman]

I think that's what you want the answer to be. Keep asking me, maybe it'll become true all of a sudden.

I don't see how you're saying anything else. The law said he couldn't have those weapons. But he ended up getting them anyway. Sooo.....

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

We're being sold the new proposals as preventing another tragedy like Sandy Hook from happening again, not as punishing the shooters.

 

[Lakhota]

Who's telling the truth: The OP or the Chief Medical Examiner? Plus, the State Police obviously saw all the empty shell casings in the school.

 

[Clementine]

I don't see how you're saying anything else. The law said he couldn't have those weapons. But he ended up getting them anyway. Sooo.....

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

We're being sold the new proposals as preventing another tragedy like Sandy Hook from happening again, not as punishing the shooters.

Exactly, there isn't a single person, save for maybe a liberal lawyer, who believes that murderers shouldn't be severely punished.

Obama is touting his gun control plan as prevention, which it clearly isn't. That is the issue here. When the left has to twist this, it tells you they know the gun control is not about keeping people safe and they have no argument as to why we should allow Obama to impose restrictions on the law abiding.

 

[daveman]

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

We're being sold the new proposals as preventing another tragedy like Sandy Hook from happening again, not as punishing the shooters.

Exactly, there isn't a single person, save for maybe a liberal lawyer, who believes that murderers shouldn't be severely punished.

Obama is touting his gun control plan as prevention, which it clearly isn't. That is the issue here. When the left has to twist this, it tells you they know the gun control is not about keeping people safe and they have no argument as to why we should allow Obama to impose restrictions on the law abiding.

To the left, the real victim of the Second Amendment is the oppressive government they want...not children.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't see how you're saying anything else. The law said he couldn't have those weapons. But he ended up getting them anyway. Sooo.....

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

We're being sold the new proposals as preventing another tragedy like Sandy Hook from happening again, not as punishing the shooters.

Who is? Not me. I'm in favor of getting rapid fire weapons OFF OF THE STREETS OF THIS COUNTRY WHILE WE IDENTIFY AND HELP FUCKED-UP NUTJOBS. Period.

You won't prevent crazy people from doing crazy things......but you can make it more difficult. I'm for that. Aren't you....DAVE?

 

[daveman]

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

We're being sold the new proposals as preventing another tragedy like Sandy Hook from happening again, not as punishing the shooters.

Who is? Not me. I'm in favor of getting rapid fire weapons OFF OF THE STREETS OF THIS COUNTRY WHILE WE IDENTIFY AND HELP FUCKED-UP NUTJOBS. Period.

You won't prevent crazy people from doing crazy things......but you can make it more difficult. I'm for that. Aren't you....DAVE?

Of course. Now which of these proposals will do that?

And which of them will criminals obey?

 

[Dubya]

Keep working on those sentences!

Purdy in jail = no dead children by his hand

You have to catch someone doing a crime to put them in jail.

 

[bobcollum]

I think that's what you want the answer to be. Keep asking me, maybe it'll become true all of a sudden.

I don't see how you're saying anything else. The law said he couldn't have those weapons. But he ended up getting them anyway. Sooo.....

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

Exactly.

It's like questioning the point of laws against murder, because they still happen anyway.

 

[daveman]

I don't see how you're saying anything else. The law said he couldn't have those weapons. But he ended up getting them anyway. Sooo.....

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

Exactly.

It's like questioning the point of laws against murder, because they still happen anyway.

The key difference, of course, is that there is no constitutional right to commit murder.

There is, however, a constitutional right to own firearms.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please choose which isolated situation you would rather be in:

A). You encounter a thug intent on robbing you. You both have handguns.

B). You encounter. Thug intent on robbing you. Neither of you have weapons of ny kind.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

Exactly.

It's like questioning the point of laws against murder, because they still happen anyway.

The key difference, of course, is that there is no constitutional right to commit murder.

There is, however, a constitutional right to own firearms.

No. There is not.

 

[daveman]

Exactly.

It's like questioning the point of laws against murder, because they still happen anyway.

The key difference, of course, is that there is no constitutional right to commit murder.

There is, however, a constitutional right to own firearms.

No. There is not.

The Constitution and SCOTUS both say you're full of shit.

 

[blackhawk]

Not really surprised by this as I have said on other threads the majority of violent crimes are committed with handguns not assault rifles.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The key difference, of course, is that there is no constitutional right to commit murder.

There is, however, a constitutional right to own firearms.

No. There is not.

The Constitution and SCOTUS both say you're full of shit.

You think you understand the intent of the 2nd amendment....don't you? So cute.

 

[bobcollum]

This is a lame line of argument. Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them. Very lame.

Exactly.

It's like questioning the point of laws against murder, because they still happen anyway.

The key difference, of course, is that there is no constitutional right to commit murder.

There is, however, a constitutional right to own firearms.

Yeah, they used to drain their blood when they were ill too.

I don't feel they can offer me much practical advice these days.

 

[daveman]

No. There is not.

The Constitution and SCOTUS both say you're full of shit.

You think you understand the intent of the 2nd amendment....don't you? So cute.

You think you know more about it than the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court?

Too stupid and arrogant.

 

[daveman]

Exactly.

It's like questioning the point of laws against murder, because they still happen anyway.

The key difference, of course, is that there is no constitutional right to commit murder.

There is, however, a constitutional right to own firearms.

Yeah, they used to drain their blood when they were ill too.

I don't feel they can offer me much practical advice these days.

Freedom's so overrated, isn't it?

Meanwhile, back in reality:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5319129/ns/health-health_care/t/fda-approves-leeches-medical-devices/