The Moment Sandy Hook Parents start cashing in their kids..

[RDD_1210]

Effective
Better?

Reduction in access to guns.

So do you think it would be more effective to properly enforce the laws we have ... Or write more laws the criminals don't care to follow?

.

Neither

 

[RDD_1210]

Effective


Better?

Yes. Now specify what the hell tightness means to you, and what the measure of effectiveness will be, reduction in crime, reduction in gun sales, reduction in innocent deaths, reduction in suicides, reduction in suicides by gun, reduction in guns held by criminals vs guns held by law abiding citizens... etc. IOW your statements are broad brush stroke political ramblings that have no clear meaning.

Reduction in access to guns.

Thanks for proving my point.

How many situations like this has Australia had since real gun laws were implemented? How many have we had?

Again, laws don't do away with anything 100%. Rape is illegal but it still happens, that doesn't mean we get rid of rape laws because they can't stop it 100% of the time.

Your example only proves that the right laws can reduce mass shootings. Australia is proof of it.

Rape laws don't involve me losing a constitutional right.

Repeal the 2nd amendment if you want to remove that right, until then go pound sand.

Oh look it's Marty, here to invent my argument for me.

Thanks Marty!

You have no argument. You have standard gun grabber drivel, that is all.

Please tell me more about what my argument is. I need to know what I think about this topic. Please don't keep me in the dark Marty!

You haven't made one intelligent contribution yet about the thread topic. Let's start there.

And let me guess, you get to be the judge of what is "intelligent contribution". Right?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

From the last two posts it seems you've forgotten what we're discussing.

Selfish gun assholes.

Nope, I'm fully aware of the topic.

No, it was actually about a lawsuit. This must be hard for you, keeping focused. You immediately went off on a gun laws tangent. Maybe you don't know the difference between criminal law and tort. But you go on with your bad self questioning the intelligence of others.

You done yet? Perhaps you can go back to wishing grieving parents go to hell.

Just let me know.

I don't wish for anyone to go to hell. Even you. Do you actually have something intelligent to say about the lawsuit?

Page 1....you ignored it though because it didn't fit your selfish agenda.

You briefly mentioned the lawsuit as a segway to ranting about gun laws, which have nothing to do with the civil suit.

 

[RDD_1210]

Good for them. This is the worst situation possible for them and NOTHING has changed from it. Nothing. **** gun lobbyists who prevent any sort of real legislation passing that would help cut down on these situations occurring. You can't sue lobbyists and this is America so the gun makers are the next most logical target. If they don't want to be sued then don't make guns.

Go ahead gun nuts, lets have it.

Yeah, laws always stop lawbreakers. That's why we have zero illegals in America.

Wait, laws don't prevent something 100%???? Are you sure????

Good thing I didn't say they did.

Solid post otherwise Jethro.

Laws only prevent people who are law-abiding from breaking the law.

Mkay.

How original

 

[Wry Catcher]

Effective
Better?

Reduction in access to guns.

So do you think it would be more effective to properly enforce the laws we have ... Or write more laws the criminals don't care to follow?

.

I think (unlike you) that a civilized nation needs to reduce the proliferation of guns when experience strongly suggests that the laws today are ineffective in protecting innocent lives.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control needs to be licensed, insured and free from any conviction of a crime of violence, never detained as a danger to themselves or others (CA W&I Code 5150) (including spending a night in the drunk tank [647ff of the CA Penal Code) or an addict of AOL (alcohol or other drugs).

For a start.

BTW, the NRA (our local terrorist outfit) failed in their effort to prevent the confirmation of the newest Surgeon General of the US, simply because he supports gun control. Kudos to those Senators who were not intimidated by the terrorists and voted their conscience.

 

[BlackSand]

Effective
Better?

Reduction in access to guns.

So do you think it would be more effective to properly enforce the laws we have ... Or write more laws the criminals don't care to follow?

.

Neither

I didn't ask you if you actually approved of either measure ... Just which method you thought would be more effective.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Will the parents win by suing the gun companies? Nope
Will they piss off the NRA by suing the gun companies? Yup

 

[RDD_1210]

Selfish gun assholes.

Nope, I'm fully aware of the topic.

No, it was actually about a lawsuit. This must be hard for you, keeping focused. You immediately went off on a gun laws tangent. Maybe you don't know the difference between criminal law and tort. But you go on with your bad self questioning the intelligence of others.

You done yet? Perhaps you can go back to wishing grieving parents go to hell.

Just let me know.

I don't wish for anyone to go to hell. Even you. Do you actually have something intelligent to say about the lawsuit?

Page 1....you ignored it though because it didn't fit your selfish agenda.

You briefly mentioned the lawsuit as a segway to ranting about gun laws, which have nothing to do with the civil suit.

Of course they do. Have someone who doesn't have a hard-on for guns explain it to you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes. Now specify what the hell tightness means to you, and what the measure of effectiveness will be, reduction in crime, reduction in gun sales, reduction in innocent deaths, reduction in suicides, reduction in suicides by gun, reduction in guns held by criminals vs guns held by law abiding citizens... etc. IOW your statements are broad brush stroke political ramblings that have no clear meaning.

Reduction in access to guns.

Rape laws don't involve me losing a constitutional right.

Repeal the 2nd amendment if you want to remove that right, until then go pound sand.

Oh look it's Marty, here to invent my argument for me.

Thanks Marty!

You have no argument. You have standard gun grabber drivel, that is all.

Please tell me more about what my argument is. I need to know what I think about this topic. Please don't keep me in the dark Marty!

You haven't made one intelligent contribution yet about the thread topic. Let's start there.

And let me guess, you get to be the judge of what is "intelligent contribution". Right?

Yes. Now specify what the hell tightness means to you, and what the measure of effectiveness will be, reduction in crime, reduction in gun sales, reduction in innocent deaths, reduction in suicides, reduction in suicides by gun, reduction in guns held by criminals vs guns held by law abiding citizens... etc. IOW your statements are broad brush stroke political ramblings that have no clear meaning.

Reduction in access to guns.

Rape laws don't involve me losing a constitutional right.

Repeal the 2nd amendment if you want to remove that right, until then go pound sand.

Oh look it's Marty, here to invent my argument for me.

Thanks Marty!

You have no argument. You have standard gun grabber drivel, that is all.

Please tell me more about what my argument is. I need to know what I think about this topic. Please don't keep me in the dark Marty!

You haven't made one intelligent contribution yet about the thread topic. Let's start there.

And let me guess, you get to be the judge of what is "intelligent contribution". Right?

I know. Too much to expect from you. How about any contribution that's on topic?

 

[mudwhistle]

Good for them. This is the worst situation possible for them and NOTHING has changed from it. Nothing. **** gun lobbyists who prevent any sort of real legislation passing that would help cut down on these situations occurring. You can't sue lobbyists and this is America so the gun makers are the next most logical target. If they don't want to be sued then don't make guns.

Go ahead gun nuts, lets have it.

What law would have prevented this?

The laws that we'll never have in this country. And nothing will prevent this all together, I said "cut down" (ie. reduce). But it doesn't matter, we live in a society full of selfish assholes and will never have any meaningful gun control put in place.

The problem is your timing sucks. Blacks are roaming the streets essentially shouting "KILL WHITE COPS" and you want to grab our guns..


Obviously you're an idiot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Will the parents win by suing the gun companies? Nope
Will they piss off the NRA by suing the gun companies? Yup

So IOW it will accomplish nothing

 

[RDD_1210]

Effective
Better?

Reduction in access to guns.

So do you think it would be more effective to properly enforce the laws we have ... Or write more laws the criminals don't care to follow?

.

I think (unlike you) that a civilized nation needs to reduce the proliferation of guns when experience strongly suggests that the laws today are ineffective in protecting innocent lives.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control needs to be licensed, insured and free from any conviction of a crime of violence, never detained as a danger to themselves or others (CA W&I Code 5150) (including spending a night in the drunk tank [647ff of the CA Penal Code) or an addict of AOL (alcohol or other drugs).

For a start.

BTW, the NRA (our local terrorist outfit) failed in their effort to prevent the confirmation of the newest Surgeon General of the US, simply because he supports gun control. Kudos to those Senators who were not intimidated by the terrorists and voted their conscience.

Be prepared to be called names for this ridiculously logical post.

There is no room in gun control discussion for logic!

 

[mdk]

Selfish gun assholes.

Nope, I'm fully aware of the topic.

No, it was actually about a lawsuit. This must be hard for you, keeping focused. You immediately went off on a gun laws tangent. Maybe you don't know the difference between criminal law and tort. But you go on with your bad self questioning the intelligence of others.

You done yet? Perhaps you can go back to wishing grieving parents go to hell.

Just let me know.

I don't wish for anyone to go to hell. Even you. Do you actually have something intelligent to say about the lawsuit?

Page 1....you ignored it though because it didn't fit your selfish agenda.

You briefly mentioned the lawsuit as a segway to ranting about gun laws, which have nothing to do with the civil suit.

What does claiming that these parents are going to hell have to do with the law suit?

 

[RDD_1210]

Effective
Better?

Reduction in access to guns.

So do you think it would be more effective to properly enforce the laws we have ... Or write more laws the criminals don't care to follow?

.

Neither

I didn't ask you if you actually approved of either measure ... Just which method you thought would be more effective.

.

Equally ineffective.

 

[RKMBrown]

How can any company control the misuse of their product?

By themselves lobbying for tighter and more meaningful gun control laws.

ROFL waves hands, says it must be more meaningful. ROFL you libtards are so GD funny. WTF does "more meaningful" mean, ya dumb ass?

Effective


Better?

Yes. Now specify what the hell tightness means to you, and what the measure of effectiveness will be, reduction in crime, reduction in gun sales, reduction in innocent deaths, reduction in suicides, reduction in suicides by gun, reduction in guns held by criminals vs guns held by law abiding citizens... etc. IOW your statements are broad brush stroke political ramblings that have no clear meaning.

Reduction in access to guns.

What law would have prevented this?

The laws that we'll never have in this country. And nothing will prevent this all together, I said "cut down" (ie. reduce). But it doesn't matter, we live in a society full of selfish assholes and will never have any meaningful gun control put in place.

Why didn't Australia's strict gun control laws, the kind you're calling for, stop the hostage crisis in Sidney?

Thanks for proving my point.

How many situations like this has Australia had since real gun laws were implemented? How many have we had?

Again, laws don't do away with anything 100%. Rape is illegal but it still happens, that doesn't mean we get rid of rape laws because they can't stop it 100% of the time.

Your example only proves that the right laws can reduce mass shootings. Australia is proof of it.

Rape laws don't involve me losing a constitutional right.

Repeal the 2nd amendment if you want to remove that right, until then go pound sand.

Oh look it's Marty, here to invent my argument for me.

Thanks Marty!

Define reduction in access.

No access by anyone?

How can you "reduce" this mentally handicapped child's access to weapons further? You know he didn't have legal access right? You know they did not sell the weapons to this mentally handicapped child right? You know it was the mother that gave him access right?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I

No, it was actually about a lawsuit. This must be hard for you, keeping focused. You immediately went off on a gun laws tangent. Maybe you don't know the difference between criminal law and tort. But you go on with your bad self questioning the intelligence of others.

You done yet? Perhaps you can go back to wishing grieving parents go to hell.

Just let me know.

I don't wish for anyone to go to hell. Even you. Do you actually have something intelligent to say about the lawsuit?

Page 1....you ignored it though because it didn't fit your selfish agenda.

You briefly mentioned the lawsuit as a segway to ranting about gun laws, which have nothing to do with the civil suit.

Of course they do. Have someone who doesn't have a hard-on for guns explain it to you.

I guess that would be you. So, how?

 

[RDD_1210]

Good for them. This is the worst situation possible for them and NOTHING has changed from it. Nothing. **** gun lobbyists who prevent any sort of real legislation passing that would help cut down on these situations occurring. You can't sue lobbyists and this is America so the gun makers are the next most logical target. If they don't want to be sued then don't make guns.

Go ahead gun nuts, lets have it.

What law would have prevented this?

The laws that we'll never have in this country. And nothing will prevent this all together, I said "cut down" (ie. reduce). But it doesn't matter, we live in a society full of selfish assholes and will never have any meaningful gun control put in place.

The problem is your timing sucks. Blacks are roaming the streets essentially shouting "KILL WHITE COPS" and you want to grab our guns..


Obviously you're an idiot.

I do? Shit, I learn more about what I want and what my opinion is from this website every time I visit.

 

[BlackSand]

I think (unlike you) that a civilized nation needs to reduce the proliferation of guns when experience strongly suggests that the laws today are ineffective in protecting innocent lives.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control needs to be licensed, insured and free from any conviction of a crime of violence, never detained as a danger to themselves or others (CA W&I Code 5150) (including spending a night in the drunk tank [647ff of the CA Penal Code) or an addict of AOL (alcohol or other drugs).

For a start.

BTW, the NRA (our local terrorist outfit) failed in their effort to prevent the confirmation of the newest Surgeon General of the US, simply because he supports gun control. Kudos to those Senators who were not intimidated by the terrorists and voted their conscience.

I know far more gun owners than members of the NRA ... And if you speak about protecting innocent lives ... You have to count the lives guns have saved as well.

If you think more regulations are required as far as licensing and whatnot ... Good luck getting it passed.

The only thing that is certain ... Is that when additional legislation is proposed ... More weapons are sold as the result.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL waves hands, says it must be more meaningful. ROFL you libtards are so GD funny. WTF does "more meaningful" mean, ya dumb ass?

Effective


Better?

Yes. Now specify what the hell tightness means to you, and what the measure of effectiveness will be, reduction in crime, reduction in gun sales, reduction in innocent deaths, reduction in suicides, reduction in suicides by gun, reduction in guns held by criminals vs guns held by law abiding citizens... etc. IOW your statements are broad brush stroke political ramblings that have no clear meaning.

Reduction in access to guns.

Why didn't Australia's strict gun control laws, the kind you're calling for, stop the hostage crisis in Sidney?

Thanks for proving my point.

How many situations like this has Australia had since real gun laws were implemented? How many have we had?

Again, laws don't do away with anything 100%. Rape is illegal but it still happens, that doesn't mean we get rid of rape laws because they can't stop it 100% of the time.

Your example only proves that the right laws can reduce mass shootings. Australia is proof of it.

Rape laws don't involve me losing a constitutional right.

Repeal the 2nd amendment if you want to remove that right, until then go pound sand.

Oh look it's Marty, here to invent my argument for me.

Thanks Marty!

You have no argument. You have standard gun grabber drivel, that is all.

Please tell me more about what my argument is. I need to know what I think about this topic. Please don't keep me in the dark Marty!

Or you could learn to write without using broad brush stroke feel good campaign slogans.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

By themselves lobbying for tighter and more meaningful gun control laws.

ROFL waves hands, says it must be more meaningful. ROFL you libtards are so GD funny. WTF does "more meaningful" mean, ya dumb ass?

Effective


Better?

Yes. Now specify what the hell tightness means to you, and what the measure of effectiveness will be, reduction in crime, reduction in gun sales, reduction in innocent deaths, reduction in suicides, reduction in suicides by gun, reduction in guns held by criminals vs guns held by law abiding citizens... etc. IOW your statements are broad brush stroke political ramblings that have no clear meaning.

Reduction in access to guns.

The laws that we'll never have in this country. And nothing will prevent this all together, I said "cut down" (ie. reduce). But it doesn't matter, we live in a society full of selfish assholes and will never have any meaningful gun control put in place.

Why didn't Australia's strict gun control laws, the kind you're calling for, stop the hostage crisis in Sidney?

Thanks for proving my point.

How many situations like this has Australia had since real gun laws were implemented? How many have we had?

Again, laws don't do away with anything 100%. Rape is illegal but it still happens, that doesn't mean we get rid of rape laws because they can't stop it 100% of the time.

Your example only proves that the right laws can reduce mass shootings. Australia is proof of it.

Rape laws don't involve me losing a constitutional right.

Repeal the 2nd amendment if you want to remove that right, until then go pound sand.

Oh look it's Marty, here to invent my argument for me.

Thanks Marty!

Define reduction in access.

No access by anyone?

How can you "reduce" this mentally handicapped child's access to weapons further? You know he didn't have legal access right? You know they did not sell the weapons to this mentally handicapped child right? You know it was the mother that gave him access right?

Amazing how the facts militate incessantly against the Left.