57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 12:32 pm
@oralloy,
Your old nonsense is getting really boring from your constant repetition of it. Try to work up some new nonsense to repeat.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 02:57 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
You''re wrong. Just proved the problem is not with magazine size.

No you didn't. I said now that you're on this track, you need to cite the instances in which a shooter using an AR-15 murdered a bunch of people by virtue of this magazine-changing strategy. You haven't done that yet. Why not?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 02:59 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
2 die as at least 12 people shot at party near Greenville, authorities say

What do you think we ought to do about that, hightor? You think we should do like MJ says and confiscate every semiautomatic gun in the country?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 04:05 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
congratulations on making the case for banning common hunting rifles too.

I know you really hate civil liberties and are desperate to violate them, but you aren't going to be allowed to do that.

The NRA will not let you.

The Supreme Court will not let you.

The American people will not let you.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 04:06 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
You''re wrong. Just proved the problem is not with magazine size. 6 shot magazines are perfectly capable of killing 30 people in twenty seconds or so from actual video evidence, only takes a second or two to swap magazines.

A few years ago some of the conservative posters here made the case that limits on magazine size make no difference, and the leftists here threw a massive temper tantrum.

It is true that limits on magazine size make only a minor difference. If you prefer to not hassle people with magazine restrictions, good. Now stop hassling them about pistol grips too. And compensate the people whose civil liberties you've violated in the past.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 04:08 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Your old nonsense is getting really boring from your constant repetition of it. Try to work up some new nonsense to repeat.

Civil liberties are not nonsense. It is wrong for you to violate people's civil liberties for fun.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 09:04 pm
@oralloy,
it is wrong for you to violate people's civl rights for fun
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 11:17 pm
@MontereyJack,
That is incorrect. The lack of new gun laws is your fault. You are the one who chooses to keep violating people's civil liberties for fun instead of working to end gun violence. Don't blame me for the choices that you make.

Further, unlike you, my motivation is not fun. My motivation is to make progressives stop violating people's civil liberties.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2019 12:00 am
@oralloy,
that's utter nonsense. your side refuses to even admit that gun violence is a continuing disaster for people's lives and the country. You hide behind your phony plaint about civil liberties violations and ignore fatal civl rghts volations. It's entirely your side
s fault, not ours.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2019 12:06 am
@oralloy,
Your otmivation is entirely a desire to fomrent gun violence for fun, judging from the great glee you take every time the NRA shoots down chnges that 90% of the country, including 2/3/ of NRA members, support, and the evident joy you take in the thought of pissing on the dead bodies of victims of gun violence..
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2019 12:33 am
@MontereyJack,
No. My goal is to make you stop violating people's civil liberties and compensate your victims.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2019 12:34 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
that's utter nonsense.

You were informed that you need to stop violating people's civil liberties before I will support any new gun laws.

You consciously decided that it was more important to you to violate people's civil liberties for fun than to save lives.

That was your choice.


MontereyJack wrote:
your side refuses to even admit that gun violence is a continuing disaster for people's lives and the country.

I said that I would be willing to contemplate some new gun laws so long as you first stop violating people's civil liberties and compensate the victims of your crimes.


MontereyJack wrote:
You hide behind your phony plaint about civil liberties violations and ignore fatal civl rghts volations.

Civil liberties are not phony. And you will have to stop violating them and compensate your victims before I will support any new gun laws.

But this shows why Trump is such a great president. He protects people from progressives who say that civil liberties are phony.


MontereyJack wrote:
It's entirely your sides fault, not ours.

You're the ones who choose to not have any new gun laws just so you can keep violating people's civil liberties for fun.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2019 03:45 am
@oralloy,
blah blah blah. just another of the phony sets of alternstives you keep comng up with. you have absolutely no power to set the terms of discourse or terms of agreement. and no one is waiting breathlessly for your consent.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2019 03:53 am
@MontereyJack,
Wrong again. I can set requirements for my support for new gun laws, and I have done so.

And, that you have chosen to not earn my support was the actual point. You shouldn't blame me because you have chosen "violating people's civil liberties for fun" over "trying to save lives".
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 11:39 pm
@oralloy,
the usual blahblahblah.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2019 11:50 pm
@MontereyJack,
Progressives sure don't like it when I post facts. Laughing
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 04:57 am
@oralloy,
blahblahblah
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 05:37 am
@MontereyJack,
That is less-bad than your usual logic. Keep it up!
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 10:44 am
Quote:
Supreme Court allows Sandy Hook families to sue Remington

The Supreme Court won't stop a lawsuit brought by Sandy Hook victims' families against
Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle that was used in the
2012 mass shooting at an elementary school.

The Court decided not to take up an appeal by Remington. That marks a blow to the
gun industry: Depending on the outcome of the case, it could open the door to gun
violence victims' families suing gun manufacturers for damages.


The Sandy Hook victims' families are "grateful" for the Supreme Court's decision, attorneys
for the families said in a statement. They called Remington's appeal the company's "latest
attempt to avoid accountability."
(cnn)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2019 10:50 am
The Supreme Court announced today that it would not hear an appeal in a case seeking to pierce firearm manufacturers’ legal immunity in the aftermath of shootings, allowing relatives of victims from Sandy Hook Elementary School to sue Remington Arms Co., maker of the rifle used there, in Connecticut courts.

The family members of nine people slain and one survivor of the Sandy Hook massacre filed the lawsuit in 2014. Remington was backed in the case by a number of gun rights groups and lobbying organizations including the powerful National Rifle Association, which is closely aligned with Republicans including President Donald Trump. The NRA called the lawsuit "company-killing".

The plaintiffs have argued that Remington bears some of the blame for the Sandy Hook tragedy. They said the Bushmaster AR-15 gun that Lanza used - a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16 - had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings.

The plaintiffs said that Connecticut’s consumer protection law forbids advertising that promotes violent, criminal behaviour and yet even though these rifles have become the “weapon of choice for mass shooters” Remington’s ads "continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman". One of them, they noted, stated, "Forces of opposition, bow down".

Docket for No. 19-168 Remington Arms Co., LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Donna L. Soto, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria L. Soto, et al.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 09:56:02