Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="A2SG" data-source="post: 62857156" data-attributes="member: 227164"><p>Yup. But they can kill more people in less time with a assault weapons, so they're sufficiently dangerous that it's in the public interest to limit their availability.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah.</p><p></p><p>Tell me, which "dishonestly biased left wing media" is responsible for the belief that facing a properly operated car is safer than facing a properly operated gun?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thanks for that. Oh, and no one's giving up any essential liberties, unless you consider it an essential liberty to allow unfettered and unrestricted access to any and all weaponry for absolutely anyone.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't equate them. I simply said that some weapons are unavailable to private citizens without violating the right to bear arms.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Never said it does.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, because kitchen knives have uses that don't involve killing.</p><p></p><p>But let's be honest here, if someone went on a killing spree with a knife they'd do a hell of a lot less damage than if they had an assault weapon.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I never said a word on the subject.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The definition of assault weapon is pretty specific both in the 1994 law and any proposed law being considered now. And "looks scary" is not a criteria.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Um...okay.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that will help prosecute gun related crimes how, exactly?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think universal background checks and limiting the availability of assault weapons are "stupid" ideas at all. Many people agree, including most NRA members.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It isn't exploiting those murdered children to demand we, as a society, do something to prevent future massacres. What we've done up to this point has resulted in more and more mass shootings, so clearly something needs to be done.</p><p></p><p>I, for one, have no problem listening to other ideas, but all I've heard are cries for more guns, and I don't see how that makes things better.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I don't live in Chicago, so the opinion of that city's mayor doesn't affect me all that much.</p><p></p><p>-- A2SG, of course, Newtown was the very first time emotions have prompted political action.....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="A2SG, post: 62857156, member: 227164"] Yup. But they can kill more people in less time with a assault weapons, so they're sufficiently dangerous that it's in the public interest to limit their availability. Ah. Tell me, which "dishonestly biased left wing media" is responsible for the belief that facing a properly operated car is safer than facing a properly operated gun? Thanks for that. Oh, and no one's giving up any essential liberties, unless you consider it an essential liberty to allow unfettered and unrestricted access to any and all weaponry for absolutely anyone. I didn't equate them. I simply said that some weapons are unavailable to private citizens without violating the right to bear arms. Never said it does. Right, because kitchen knives have uses that don't involve killing. But let's be honest here, if someone went on a killing spree with a knife they'd do a hell of a lot less damage than if they had an assault weapon. I never said a word on the subject. The definition of assault weapon is pretty specific both in the 1994 law and any proposed law being considered now. And "looks scary" is not a criteria. Ah. Um...okay. And that will help prosecute gun related crimes how, exactly? I don't think universal background checks and limiting the availability of assault weapons are "stupid" ideas at all. Many people agree, including most NRA members. It isn't exploiting those murdered children to demand we, as a society, do something to prevent future massacres. What we've done up to this point has resulted in more and more mass shootings, so clearly something needs to be done. I, for one, have no problem listening to other ideas, but all I've heard are cries for more guns, and I don't see how that makes things better. Well, I don't live in Chicago, so the opinion of that city's mayor doesn't affect me all that much. -- A2SG, of course, Newtown was the very first time emotions have prompted political action..... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?
Top
Bottom