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

You're talking utter nonsense.

As far as I can tell, the only person in the world who thinks this is about pistol grips is you.

certainly people who want gun control don't think it's about pistol grips.

That's why there are laws restricting weapons, not pistol grips,

weapons that don't even have pistol grips.

You're full of it..

this past winter, if I remember correctly, PA, some multiple gun owner got into an altercation with his neighbors, who were digging their car out after a snowfall.-claiming some of the snow dug out was in his driveway. He went back into his house, returned with a pistol, and shot both of his neighbors. As they lay wounded, he went back into his house, came back with an AR-15, and killed both of the neighbors. It's clearly not self-defense, but murder.

So even in the NRA's bogus reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment,

he had no justification whatsoever, but he still according to you had the civil liberty to buy a gun. If you have it, you can use it. He did, and he murdered two innocent people exercising his "civil liberty".

That's the fundamental problem with your interpretation. It leads to murders, and that's not a civilized, sane society.

You're talking in the singular, is MI doing j&j?

read the laws. they are explicitly about weapons, not grips.

no matter how often you claim that, it's contrafactual..

and you still don't use appeal to the crowd correctly.

More in the nature of pointing out how, after five years or so, no one else has ever taken your point to heart as anything other than totally looopy.

You may have noticed that every democratic candidate came out in favor of gun control, and the winning candidate is now a democratic president and he was elected in spite of everything the nra threw up on him about. Ain't gonna be as you want it to be.

I repeat my example of the driveway snow murders in PA (Probably PA). If the murderer had no guns, it would have been a snowball fight, and fatalities are pretty low in those.

Not to mention stephen paddock,

dylan roof, and nick cruz.

The point is, people don't use baseball bats or snowballs or whatever with anywhere near the frequency they use guns, which are omnipresent, relatively simple, and as easy to point and shoot as a simple kodak camera.

**** hp and its capslock.

If you like, I can look up that NPR piece about the company that bought out the rights and manufacturing equipment for the original IBM keyboards when IBM left the PC business.

I'm in love with my keyboard.

So tell me what civil liberties the guy who killed six Asian masseuses in three spas in georgia was upholding when he killed them because he is a sex addict and wanted to avoid being tempted by them.

yes, he could have killed them by forcing them to drink poison body lotion, I suppose, but he didn't. he used a GUN.

No guns, no death. simple.

Precisely the point. He had the gun (presumably legal, but the point is the same either way) because you maintain it is a civil liberty to have it, and then used it as it was intended to be used, and murdered a bunch of people with his civil liberties gun. That is the basic problem, which you refuse to address.

It's murder by civil liberty, and that's unacceptable in america.

most people don't have an ax, or the impetus to use one, no matter how pissed off they are. that is not the situation with guns.

and that question of homicide rates is surely bogus statistics.

as witness the fact that year after year more people are killed with guns than knives or being deliberately run over by cars, or any other means of murder.

doesn't hold water

with all those other means, they still kill 12000 or so every year with guns..

I got Phiser, no choice, and no side effects, apart from a little soreness from the shot. My sister and niece both got moderna, also no choice, and both had flu-like side effects the day or two after..