since gun sales are soaring maybe remington will do well and be able cover

[miketx]

the dupes think the answer to every killing spree is more guns.

The military thinks the answer to people getting mowed down on the battle field is more guns. Why are this situations different?

I guess you prefer more countries to have more nukes too? It’s good NK has nukes ! Makes for a safer planet , right ?

The nuke can't do anything by itself right? Personally, I wouldn't want a nuke. I'd have to keep in my garage and if it somehow went off, it would take out the whole 'hood.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Comparing nukes to rifles isn't even an Apples to Orangutans comparison

If people are the problem, not guns, then why is your solution to let the problem buy guns?

I never offered any solutions.

I'm not stupid enough to think that we can stop people from killing each other.

The fact that people kill people is as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact and accepting it to be true why would I want to be unarmed?

 

[TNHarley]

All those bullshit lawsuits over sandy hook.

What lawsuits? Legislation passed during Bush the Dumber protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits because they saw what happened to the tobacco companies and wanted to avoid that.

Look it up

 

[The Derp]

The military thinks the answer to people getting mowed down on the battle field is more guns. Why are this situations different?

Do they, though? The military has been using more and more drones and robots to do the dirty work, not putting more soldiers into harm's way.

And of course any general will tell you the best weapon in war is reliable intelligence, not who has the bigger gun.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The military thinks the answer to people getting mowed down on the battle field is more guns. Why are this situations different?

Do they, though? The military has been using more and more drones and robots to do the dirty work, not putting more soldiers into harm's way.

And of course any general will tell you the best weapon in war is reliable intelligence, not who has the bigger gun.

Reliable intelligence

Oxymoron

 

[miketx]

Comparing nukes to rifles isn't even an Apples to Orangutans comparison

If people are the problem, not guns, then why is your solution to let the problem buy guns?

I explained that to you in the other thread. Only a fraction of the population are criminals, and you cannot treat all people as though they were criminals. That's wrong. people have a right to keep and bear arms unless they have proven themselves to be criminals. That being said it is only reasonable for people who realize that law cannot protect them from criminals, to buy guns to even up the odds of surviving a criminal attack.

 

[Pop23]

Comparing nukes to rifles isn't even an Apples to Orangutans comparison

If people are the problem, not guns, then why is your solution to let the problem buy guns?

I explained that to you in the other thread. Only a fraction of the population are criminals, and you cannot treat all people as though they were criminals. That's wrong. people have a right to keep and bear arms unless they have proven themselves to be criminals. That being said it is only reasonable for people who realize that law cannot protect them from criminals, to buy guns to even up the odds of surviving a criminal attack.

It appears that turning law abiding citizens into criminals is the intent.

 

[The Derp]

I never offered any solutions.

Which is exactly why the anti-gun movement is resonating so much with people; because you don't have a plan for anything even though this has been a problem for decades and you've had 40 years to do something about it.

Your lack of a plan and strategy of inaction is increasingly unpalatable to voters, who see the NRA involvement as corrupt and in the interests of gunmakers who oppose any kind of gun control that might limit their sales. When the time comes to choose between the Democrats' plan and the NRA-backed Republican plan of doing nothing, voters will make the choice to go with the side that actually has a plan vs. the side that ignores the problem. Which is exactly what happened with health care.

I'm not stupid enough to think that we can stop people from killing each other.

But you'd agree that guns make it way easier for people to inflict harm on large numbers of people indiscriminately.

The fact that people kill people is as irrefutable as gravity

Again, if people are the problem, why do you think letting the problem buy guns makes sense?

Now knowing this fact and accepting it to be true why would I want to be unarmed?

You can arm yourself with other things instead of a gun.

 

[The Derp]

Look it up

How about you do your work instead, putting in maximum effort instead of sending me on a wild goose chase?

 

[Timmy]

the dupes think the answer to every killing spree is more guns.

The military thinks the answer to people getting mowed down on the battle field is more guns. Why are this situations different?

I guess you prefer more countries to have more nukes too? It’s good NK has nukes ! Makes for a safer planet , right ?

Comparing nukes to rifles isn't even an Apples to Orangutans comparison

Why not . A rifle to a perso = a nuke to a country .

 

[The Derp]

Reliable intelligenceOxymoron

So this is a funny response from someone who once said they were a veteran.

Reliable Intelligence refers to the intel you get on the enemy, so you can craft a strategy that works to defeat them.

But I can tell you think war doesn't require strategy.

 

[OldLady]

All those bullshit lawsuits over sandy hook.
What kind of dumbass thinks a manufacturer is liable for what a crazy person does with their tools?
If i ever get attacked with a hammer, i am going to sue Stanley.
If i ever get hit by a drunk driver, i am going to sue chevy amd Jim Beam.
Do you idiots ever think about what your bedwetting is doing to society?

Guns have no purpose but to kill. That's why.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never offered any solutions.

Which is exactly why the anti-gun movement is resonating so much with people; because you don't have a plan for anything even though this has been a problem for decades and you've had 40 years to do something about it.

Your lack of a plan and strategy of inaction is increasingly unpalatable to voters, who see the NRA involvement as corrupt and in the interests of gunmakers who oppose any kind of gun control that might limit their sales. When the time comes to choose between the Democrats' plan and the NRA-backed Republican plan of doing nothing, voters will make the choice to go with the side that actually has a plan vs. the side that ignores the problem. Which is exactly what happened with health care.

I'm not stupid enough to think that we can stop people from killing each other.

But you'd agree that guns make it way easier for people to inflict harm on large numbers of people indiscriminately.

The fact that people kill people is as irrefutable as gravity

Again, if people are the problem, why do you think letting the problem buy guns makes sense?

Now knowing this fact and accepting it to be true why would I want to be unarmed?

You can arm yourself with other things instead of a gun.

Fortunately the people who will not commit murder far outnumber those that do yet you want to disarm the people who will not are are the least likely to commit murder while not even acknowledging the fact that the people who will commit murder will laugh at your gun laws and then shoot you in the face.

No law will stop people from killing.

You have the same chance of being killed as I do.

I stack the odds in my favor by carrying a gun.

The question is why don't you carry a gun?

 

[Dschrute3]

Yeah, let's hope Remington isn't the first domino to fall. The Communists/Democrats have an Agenda. Remington going down would be a big victory for them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the dupes think the answer to every killing spree is more guns.

The military thinks the answer to people getting mowed down on the battle field is more guns. Why are this situations different?

I guess you prefer more countries to have more nukes too? It’s good NK has nukes ! Makes for a safer planet , right ?

Comparing nukes to rifles isn't even an Apples to Orangutans comparison

Why not . A rifle to a perso = a nuke to a country .

If you can't see why your analogy is ridiculous

 

[Skull Pilot]

Reliable intelligenceOxymoron

So this is a funny response from someone who once said they were a veteran.

Reliable Intelligence refers to the intel you get on the enemy, so you can craft a strategy that works to defeat them.

But I can tell you think war doesn't require strategy.

Where did I ever say that?

FYI I never served in the military because the ******* government sent my Dad to his death in the skies over Vietnam for absolutely nothing but a game of political brinksmanship that we lost

 

[The Derp]

Only a fraction of the population are criminals, and you cannot treat all people as though they were criminals.

But you can't tell who is going to become a criminal before they actually commit a crime, which means every single gun owner has the potential to be a criminal. You're telling me it's a "fraction" of the population, but you can't say that for sure because you don't know who is a criminal and who isn't.

And then, of course, the fact that all guns criminals get come from "responsible gun owners". So this isn't an instance of innocence & guilt, this is an instance of responsibility and negligence. You may be innocent until proven guilty, but you're negligent until proven responsible.

That's wrong. people have a right to keep and bear arms unless they have proven themselves to be criminals.

But what about those who haven't yet proven themselves to be criminals, but will? Are you just writing them off? So you're also writing off their victims too, then. It's that monstrous position that is galvanizing the anti-gun movement. Look what happened in Wisconsin last night; an NRA-backed Conservative judge was just trounced by double-digits by a liberal anti-gun candidate. Expect more of that to happen up to and through November, and it's solely because of you and your positions.

That being said it is only reasonable for people who realize that law cannot protect them from criminals, to buy guns to even up the odds of surviving a criminal attack.

LOL! All you do when you bring a gun into your home is increase the supply of guns from which criminals steal, making it easier and more likely for a criminal to get their hands on a gun. So you might think it evens the odds, but it doesn't. For one, you can't even quatify those odds, and for two, the odds go way up that you'll hurt yourself or someone in your family with your gun before you ever use it for self-defense.

So you're not playing the odds. You're making the odds worse for yourself and everyone else.

 

[Pop23]

All those bullshit lawsuits over sandy hook.
What kind of dumbass thinks a manufacturer is liable for what a crazy person does with their tools?
If i ever get attacked with a hammer, i am going to sue Stanley.
If i ever get hit by a drunk driver, i am going to sue chevy amd Jim Beam.
Do you idiots ever think about what your bedwetting is doing to society?

Guns have no purpose but to kill. That's why.

Mine must be defective. They’ve never killed anyone. Maybe defective?

 

[Flash]

Examples?

Examples?

A sad little attempt at propaganda, there.

Would you care to point out anything that wasn't true?

The NRA does not lie to boost gun sales.

Sure they do . They make obama a boogeyman . “The black guy coming for your guns “.

Truth is obama was as hands off guns as you get from a dem prez. Until sandy hook happened .

Obama was an asshole and did a lot to destroy this country. He was the bogeyman and sure as hell didn't give a shit about the Bill of Rights.

If he hadn't spent all his energy the first two years trying to destroy healthcare he would have gone after firearms. Thank god the Democrats lost Congress in 2010 or else we would have no Constitutional rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Only a fraction of the population are criminals, and you cannot treat all people as though they were criminals.

But you can't tell who is going to become a criminal before they actually commit a crime, which means every single gun owner has the potential to be a criminal. You're telling me it's a "fraction" of the population, but you can't say that for sure because you don't know who is a criminal and who isn't.

And then, of course, the fact that all guns criminals get come from "responsible gun owners". So this isn't an instance of innocence & guilt, this is an instance of responsibility and negligence. You may be innocent until proven guilty, but you're negligent until proven responsible.

That's wrong. people have a right to keep and bear arms unless they have proven themselves to be criminals.

But what about those who haven't yet proven themselves to be criminals, but will? Are you just writing them off? So you're also writing off their victims too, then. It's that monstrous position that is galvanizing the anti-gun movement. Look what happened in Wisconsin last night; an NRA-backed Conservative judge was just trounced by double-digits by a liberal anti-gun candidate. Expect more of that to happen up to and through November, and it's solely because of you and your positions.

That being said it is only reasonable for people who realize that law cannot protect them from criminals, to buy guns to even up the odds of surviving a criminal attack.

LOL! All you do when you bring a gun into your home is increase the supply of guns from which criminals steal, making it easier and more likely for a criminal to get their hands on a gun. So you might think it evens the odds, but it doesn't. For one, you can't even quatify those odds, and for two, the odds go way up that you'll hurt yourself or someone in your family with your gun before you ever use it for self-defense.

So you're not playing the odds. You're making the odds worse for yourself and everyone else.

So tell me if I can't tell if you're going to become a child rapist why shouldn't I put you on a sex offenders list right now, chemically castrate you and limit your contact with children?