To those who support anti-gunners wanting mental health checks for your Rights? Homesickness reason to deny 2nd Amendment Rights...this is why.....

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually it isn't. The objective isn't to kill. The objective is to make the aggressor stop his attack.

How?

(Hint: by the promise of or delivery of grievous bodily harm and/or death.)

That's it. That's 100% how it works.

Stop with the infantile word games.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually it isn't. The objective isn't to kill. The objective is to make the aggressor stop his attack.

And to protect the vulnerable. THAT is what the ghouls find objectionable. Because they feed upon the vulnerable.

 

[koshergrl]

I'd say someone who touts their Christianity publicly with a NT quote but then denigrates those in pain ("the Crazies") and shows no sign of compassion is acting in a way more in line with the Ravening Wolf than the Prophet.

I honestly do hope you read the Bible some time. Your faith can be more rounded out.

They are crazy. It was simply an accurate description and there is nothing that infuriates the anti Christian loons more than an accurate description of the people they are exploiting.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

They are crazy.

Yeah, we've established what you think about "the crazies".

It was simply an accurate description and there is nothing that infuriates the anti Christian loons more than an accurate description of the people they are exploiting.

Exploiting?

Well, Kudos anyway for remembering the book of Daniel. It's refreshing to see you actually reference the Bible once in a while.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, we've established what you think about "the crazies".



Exploiting?

Well, Kudos anyway for remembering the book of Daniel. It's refreshing to see you actually reference the Bible once in a while.

Sure. You exploit vulnerable people. Here you are exploiting the insane yo justify the removal of our human right to defend ourselves and our children.

 

[ding]

And to protect the vulnerable. THAT is what the ghouls find objectionable. Because they feed upon the vulnerable.

Yes, inherent to this conversation is a bad guy taking and creating every advantage possible to do ill will. The more lopsided the better. Firearms level the playing field and that is why they are such an effective deterrent to men of ill will.

 

[miketx]

Sure. You exploit vulnerable people. Here you are exploiting the insane yo justify the removal of our human right to defend ourselves and our children.

He's a sick child abuser.

 

[Failzero]

I’m a Pro Life Practitioner Of Judaism .

 

[koshergrl]

He's a sick child abuser.

They all are.

 

[ding]

How?

(Hint: by the promise of or delivery of grievous bodily harm and/or death.)

That's it. That's 100% how it works.

Stop with the infantile word games.

Maybe that is how you would do it and see it, but it's not how I would do it or see it.

So, I'm not playing word games. If you can only think of using a gun to kill people, you probably shouldn't own a gun.

 

[ding]

Well, thank heavens there's not a WOMAN'S BODY that is required for all of this!

The thing I love about the Pro-Lifers is they invariably demand freedom for themselves but will GLADLY pass any amount of laws to keep others from enjoying that same benefit.

And of course "pro-life" folks often couldn't care less about that "life" once it's born. That's why they vote constantly to decrease welfare and limit access to healthcare and help.

History shows atrocities typically begin with dehumanization and a victim narrative. But the question SCOTUS is likely to address is when does human life begin, is it a specific person and when should the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness begin.

 

[miketx]

Hey child abuser, come get my guns.

 

[miketx]

 

[koshergrl]

Maybe that is how you would do it and see it, but it's not how I would do it or see it.

So, I'm not playing word games. If you can only think of using a gun to kill people, you probably shouldn't own a gun.

And if he can’t be trusted around weapons he shouldn’t be walking free.

 

[ding]

And if he can’t be trusted around weapons he shouldn’t be walking free.

That's a slippery slope.

 

[koshergrl]

That's a slippery slope.

my point is that if a person can‘t be trusted around weapons then they are a threat and should be restrained. our enemies turn violent offenders out into the streets then use them to “prove” we need gun control.

 

[Open Bolt]

They were invented for warfare and/or hunting applications. They were invented specifically to kill or maim or otherwise cause grievous bodily harm. BY DEFINITION.
Why do YOU think they were invented?

Hunting weapons have the death of a game animal as their specific intended purpose.

Guns designed for shooting sports are meant to strike non-living objects and never cause a bit of harm to a living organism.

Guns designed for self defense do cause grievous harm and even death, but that is not the intended purpose of the guns. It is only an unfortunate side effect.

A defensive shooting where the bad guy survived to stand trial but was prevented from harming anyone is a successful defense despite no lives being lost.

A defensive shooting where the bad guy was fatally wounded but went on to murder an entire family before succumbing to his wounds is a failed defense despite the bad guy being killed.

I honestly cannot get enough of this sentence. PRO GUNS and PRO LIFE.
It's almost as if this is one giant Poe's Law sentence.

When guns are used to defend people from murderers, guns save lives.

Why do you think police officers carry guns?

You think you could stand up to the modern US military armed only with what you can buy at Wal Mart? Good luck!

Who said anything about being limited to what you can buy at Wal Mart?

Militiamen have the right to have grenades and bazookas and full-auto weapons.

Of course, perhaps if the courts one day start enforcing this right, Wal Mart will start selling grenades and bazookas and full-auto weapons.

The US decided back in the 1960's to shutter and close up the "mental institutions". It was JFK's dream to move mental health back to a more supportive community-based system. Only problem was that as time went on America did the "cost savings" part by de-institutionalizing (and ELIMINATING AVAILABLE BEDS) of the mentally ill but never followed up with putting money into community mental health care initiatives.
Finally in the 1980's Ronald Reagan helped complete the process and now today America has a massive mental health crisis which we are dealing with by simply turning them loose to fend for themselves in a society that couldn't care less about them.

While I agree with your assessment that our society is not taking good care of our mentally ill today, those institutions of the past were hardly kind and caring places for the mentally ill to live out their lives.

Our society spent as little on the mentally ill back in the days of mental institutions as we spend on them today. The only real difference is that back then the mentally ill were kept out of sight so we didn't have to confront the way that we were neglecting them.

Well, thank heavens there's not a WOMAN'S BODY that is required for all of this!

There are pro-life women too. It's not just all men.

I think the pro-choice movement would have gotten more support from men if they had ever acknowledged that men do have a vital interest in whether they become a father or not.

The notion that it's none of a man's business whether or not he becomes a father doesn't sit well with some men.

Or, as men who skip out on child support like to say: "No Uterus No Opinion?? No Opinion No Obligation!!"

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Sure. You exploit vulnerable people. Here you are exploiting the insane yo justify the removal of our human right to defend ourselves and our children.

Or maybe my family has been touched by mental illness in a way you can never understand. Maybe some in my family have had more pain than your silly prayers could ever deal with.

Your lack of compassion is noted.

Remember: whatsoever you sow you shall reap.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Hunting weapons have the death of a game animal as their specific intended purpose.

Which is exactly what I said.

Guns designed for shooting sports are meant to strike non-living objects and never cause a bit of harm to a living organism.

That isn't what guns were initially invented for and arguably "sports shooting" is little more than turning a hunting activity/military activity into a sport....NOT the other way 'round.

Guns designed for self defense do cause grievous harm and even death, but that is not the intended purpose of the guns. It is only an unfortunate side effect.

LOL. No. That is EXACTLY what they are intended to do. EVen if they are never fired, the point is that if they were they would cause grievous harm or death.

Honestly, just think it through for a second.

Why do you think police officers carry guns?

For the EXACT REASON I HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES NOW.

There are pro-life women too. It's not just all men.

Never said otherwise.

I think the pro-choice movement would have gotten more support from men if they had ever acknowledged that men do have a vital interest in whether they become a father or not.

Why would the pro-choice movement have to care one WHIT what a man thinks? I don't recall men's bodies being involved in the gestation and carrying-to-term of the baby.

The notion that it's none of a man's business whether or not he becomes a father doesn't sit well with some men.

Well, the DO have control of their penises so....

Or, as men who skip out on child support like to say: "No Uterus No Opinion?? No Opinion No Obligation!!"

Yeah, men's rights groups tend to be loaded with a bunch of whiners and pathetic losers.

 

[koshergrl]

Or maybe my family has been touched by mental illness in a way you can never understand. Maybe some in my family have had more pain than your silly prayers could ever deal with.

Your lack of compassion is noted.

Remember: whatsoever you sow you shall reap.

You think it’s compassionate to leave the insane on the streets? I’m not concerned sbout what I’m going to reap. You likewise have no idea what my experience is.