Elementary school shooting

[Samson]

Illegal laws. A moron with and oxymoron. Sweet.

Spoken like the moron you are. Here's a clue for you dude. EVERY time the Supreme Court knocks down a law as being un-Constituional, they are saying the law was illegal to begin with, therefore un-enforcible.

theoretically. but the reality is that for the law to have gotten to the supreme court, it would have already BEEN enforced.

And your point, then would be?

 

[jillian]

Spoken like the moron you are. Here's a clue for you dude. EVERY time the Supreme Court knocks down a law as being un-Constituional, they are saying the law was illegal to begin with, therefore un-enforcible.

theoretically. but the reality is that for the law to have gotten to the supreme court, it would have already BEEN enforced.

And your point, then would be?

to respond to his misleading statement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There have been what we'll call 'advancements' in drug technology. Crack cocaine, ecstasy, crystal meth, and purer, more potent heroin. No one is suggesting that enforcement and prevention efforts be stopped when faced with these perils.

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you. I bet I can find hundreds of people that think we should end all law enforcement and prevention efforts against drugs, quite a few of them active duty law enforcement.

Let's End Drug Prohibition - WSJ.com

LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Maybe you should pay more attention to the real world.

Advancements in weapons technology have wrought the cheap hand gun (formerly referred to as a Saturday Night Special), high capacity magazines and fully or semi automatic firing systems.

None of those are new technology. The simple fact is that large capacity magazines only work in movies, in real life they tend to jam. I don't know anyone who actually uses their weapons that even owns one.

To use your comparison, crack cocaine and crystal meth haven't shown to be benefits to society. Can you say that this new gun technology has benefitted us well? Why are such guns allowed to be sold to the public? Seems we got along okay before we could walk into a school or theater or restaurant or campus and fired scores of bullets in the blink of an eye. Hunters still bagged their game. Gun enthusiasts still were able to satisfy their lust for power or deny their penis envy.

Things have to show a benefit to society to be legal? Can you explain Coca Cola using that logic?

But now we must endure mass shootings because gun makers developed new super guns. The solution is to revert to the gun technology and laws we had before the advent of designers of death toiling away in gun factories.

What new super guns are you talking about? The only new super guns I know of are the vehicle mounted microwave guns that are designed to disperse crowds.

If laws were passed stating the manufacture, sale, distribution and possession of semi or fully automatic firing systems as well as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds was a federal crime, all in an effort to rid ourselves of these super guns, would that be the wrong step? Further, gun owners would have a reasonable time frame to turn in such guns and receive a tax credit equal to the value of each gun. Any guns held by people other than law enforcement or military would be then confiscated and those in possession of such guns would face a mandatory prison term. Any such gun used in commission of a crime would be confiscated and the possessor again would face a mandatory prison term.

You want to make the standard issue police Glock illegal? The Sig Sauer that the Secret Service uses? Just because you have trouble counting above 10?

Why?

All in the greater effort to rid society of the blight of mass shootings and violent street crime.

It is already illegal for most gang members to won guns, yet they routinely use them to shoot each other. Do you think a federal law regulating magazine capacity would somehow magically make these people comply with the law?

This is a fairly nice blog that can explain to you why you are being stupid without actually calling you stupid, you should read it.

The facts of life on high capacity magazines | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes they did. Afterwards were those asking that something be done vilified?

Only by people that knew what would happen if we gave the government power to control airport security.

government ALWAYS had the right to control airport security.

Governments do not have rights.

 

[jtpr312]

Illegal laws. A moron with and oxymoron. Sweet.

Spoken like the moron you are. Here's a clue for you dude. EVERY time the Supreme Court knocks down a law as being un-Constituional, they are saying the law was illegal to begin with, therefore un-enforcible.

theoretically. but the reality is that for the law to have gotten to the supreme court, it would have already BEEN enforced because only someone against whom it had been enforced would have standing to bring a challenge.

And what happens to the defendent when the Surpreme Court rules a law they had been arrested for was an illegal law? They are set free, becuase they were detained and inprisoned on an unenforceable law.

 

[bodecea]

Only by people that knew what would happen if we gave the government power to control airport security.

government ALWAYS had the right to control airport security.

Governments do not have rights.

Oh?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said that. But I did not say that a person who is attacked by 6 people at once does not have the right to defend himself. You said that. I said that I cannot imagine ever needing a weapon that can mow down a half dozen humans in a few seconds. definitely not the same thing.

I think you know this.....but every once in a while your stupid act is really, really effective and I'm not sure. If you think I said that people lose their right to defend themselves when the attackers are many......you are a ******* idiot.

Except you do not want him to have a weapon that would be effective if that happened. Care to explain how you think a right to self defense works if you do not also have a right to the tools needed to do the job?

Hmmm, You are a slippery one. Never willing to just admit when you are wrong. How about you pay attention. I never said that someone should not have a weapon like that I said that I can't imagine needing one. I have also said that these types of weapons need to be more strictly regulated..........not banned. If the jerkoff in question can demonstrate a need for said weapon....let him get it......but let him have to jump through a few hoops to do so.

I don't know about you, but I have never felt that making laws that take the most improbable circumstances into account is a very efficient or effective strategy. Think about it. You'll probably agree.

You can't imagine getting attacked by 6 people at once?

By the way, you said we should do something about weapons like that, which means I am accurately representing your words.

I don't know about you, but I think laws should be able to deal with anything that comes along, even the improbable. I think that is why politicians spend so much time babbling about the unlikely events, and why they created things like safe have laws, for those extremely rare occasions when a mother wants to give up her child.

Unless, of course, you think we should get rid of those laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

government ALWAYS had the right to control airport security.

Governments do not have rights.

Oh?

Yes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Except you do not want him to have a weapon that would be effective if that happened. Care to explain how you think a right to self defense works if you do not also have a right to the tools needed to do the job?

Hmmm, You are a slippery one. Never willing to just admit when you are wrong. How about you pay attention. I never said that someone should not have a weapon like that I said that I can't imagine needing one. I have also said that these types of weapons need to be more strictly regulated..........not banned. If the jerkoff in question can demonstrate a need for said weapon....let him get it......but let him have to jump through a few hoops to do so.

I don't know about you, but I have never felt that making laws that take the most improbable circumstances into account is a very efficient or effective strategy. Think about it. You'll probably agree.

You can't imagine getting attacked by 6 people at once?

By the way, you said we should do something about weapons like that, which means I am accurately representing your words.

I don't know about you, but I think laws should be able to deal with anything that comes along, even the improbable. I think that is why politicians spend so much time babbling about the unlikely events, and why they created things like safe have laws, for those extremely rare occasions when a mother wants to give up her child.

Unless, of course, you think we should get rid of those laws.

There, there.........I won't make you admit your mistake. Consider yourself off the hook. You are going to twist yourself into a knot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmmm, You are a slippery one. Never willing to just admit when you are wrong. How about you pay attention. I never said that someone should not have a weapon like that I said that I can't imagine needing one. I have also said that these types of weapons need to be more strictly regulated..........not banned. If the jerkoff in question can demonstrate a need for said weapon....let him get it......but let him have to jump through a few hoops to do so.

I don't know about you, but I have never felt that making laws that take the most improbable circumstances into account is a very efficient or effective strategy. Think about it. You'll probably agree.

You can't imagine getting attacked by 6 people at once?

By the way, you said we should do something about weapons like that, which means I am accurately representing your words.

I don't know about you, but I think laws should be able to deal with anything that comes along, even the improbable. I think that is why politicians spend so much time babbling about the unlikely events, and why they created things like safe have laws, for those extremely rare occasions when a mother wants to give up her child.

Unless, of course, you think we should get rid of those laws.

There, there.........I won't make you admit your mistake. Consider yourself off the hook. You are going to twist yourself into a knot.

Such a witty and trollish retort. Did you get from jokes are us dot com?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I love that word "retort". Just love it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love that word "retort". Just love it.

Because it closely resemble's what you are retard?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wooohooo! You ain't funny. I know it burns your ass........but there is nothing you can do about it. You are what you are.

 

[Si modo]

I love that word "retort". Just love it.

Great. Maybe you can strive to make one at some point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wooohooo! You ain't funny. I know it burns your ass........but there is nothing you can do about it. You are what you are.

Who said I was trying to be funny, does the truth give you a chapped ass?

 

[saveliberty]

Lord knows Lone has committed enough torts.

 

[Si modo]

It's funny to watch the poseur LoneLaughter beg for a discussion about the topic, but all it does is ***** about a problem without providing any....not a single....idea for a solution.

Whiny cowards do that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Come on now.......why all the hostility? You all seem like such likeable people. My feelings are gonna get hurt.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Come on now.......why all the hostility? You all seem like such likeable people. My feelings are gonna get hurt.

Poor baby go cry on truth don't matter avatar.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's funny to watch the poseur LoneLaughter beg for a discussion about the topic, but all it does is ***** about a problem without providing any....not a single....idea for a solution.

Whiny cowards do that.

Oh! French! Are you trying to woo me? How's about a reach around?