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

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

no they aren't and no they don't.

That is incorrect. Removing people's rights without due process is a violation of the right to due process.

Violating people's constitutional rights is very much unconstitutional.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

As the NYT put it: "AFTER 3 MASS SHOOTINGS, A THANKSGIVING WITH 14 EMPTY CHAIRS" Happy Holidays.

Spare me the histrionics.

I take it you are conceding that under the Heller ruling people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense, and also the right to any gun that there is no justification for outlawing.

1 Reply

Quote:

Biden rails against access to assault weapons after recent spate of shootings

President Joe Biden said Thursday that he would work with Congress to “try to get rid of assault weapons”
after a recent spate of shootings in the US.

“The idea (that) we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick, it’s just sick. It has no
social redeeming value, zero, none. Not a single, solitary rationale for it,” Biden told reporters during a
brief gaggle outside the Nantucket Fire Department in Massachusetts, where he greeted first responders.

Asked whether he would try to take action on guns, the president said, “I’m going to try. I’m going to try
to get rid of assault weapons.” When pressed on whether he would try to do so during the lame duck
session, he said, “I’m going to do it whenever – I’ve got to make that assessment as soon as I get in
and start counting the votes.”

(cnn)

1 Reply

telling it like it is...

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Biden rails against access to assault weapons after recent spate of shootings

No assault weapon that is legally owned by an American civilian has been used to commit a crime in the past 88 years.

Mr. Biden just thinks that it would be fun to violate people's civil liberties.

But don't worry. Mr. Biden can cry all he wants. But he isn't going to be allowed to violate anyone's civil liberties.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

telling it like it is...

Hardly. Like most on the left, all he does is lie.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If that's what you take, you are an idiot. If.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

that is a lie.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

The only lie here is that progressive's claim in that graphic, saying that the US is an outlier on guns.

There are other countries where lots of people have guns.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

If that's what you take, you are an idiot. If.

Failure to even try to challenge my points is a concession that my points are true.

Reliance on name-calling indicates an inability to use facts and logic.

4 Replies

@oralloy,

You are probably the biggest name caller on a2k certajnly among the most vebomous so by ykur own logic gou fail.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There is no conceivable wat==y rhe Tgiving shootings were self-defense. None. They were murder, and murder is not a civil librrty., so your cavil is pure nonsense. The problem, which you refuse to recognize is that guns while they may be used for self defense, tho usually that's not what they are used for, but are also extremely good at commiting murder, and that is in fact what they are far too often used for. You seem to hsave no interest in cutting down the body count, and that's why you failin hyour arguments, which are wildly immoral, as are those of the thugs at the NRA> q.e.d.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

but our guns are used with disturbing frequency to kill innocents, which makes us an outlier.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There is nlff de. They were murder1 were so conceivable way th re Tgiving shootings

1 Reply

@oralloy,

acording to usa today, the VA walmart shooter bought the gun he used legally the same day he used it to shoot and kill people in the walmart.. Come on ,oralloy, tell me how that was civil liberties in action.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

well that got botched in the posting. should have beenn "there is no conceivable way the Tgiving shootings were self defense. they were gun murder, and that is not a civil liberty." Your defense falls very far short.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

My defense is just fine. "That it is wrong for you to violate people's civil liberties" is a sound argument.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You are probably the biggest name caller on a2k certajnly among the most venomous

I only engage in name-calling in self defense, when I am targeted with name-calling.

Note that when I criticize someone for doing something horrible, that is not name-calling.

MontereyJack wrote:

so by your own logic you fail.

That is incorrect. My logic leads me to total victory.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

but our guns are used with disturbing frequency to kill innocents, which makes us an outlier.

The use of guns is completely irrelevant. Massacre victims would be just as dead if they were killed with knives. Or with bombs. Or with vehicles driven at high speed. Or with whatever other diabolical ideas a murderer might come up with.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

acording to usa today, the VA walmart shooter bought the gun he used legally the same day he used it to shoot and kill people in the walmart.. Come on ,oralloy, tell me how that was civil liberties in action.

I am not familiar with the case, so I can't really comment.

I mean, I've heard a few headlines about the shooting of course. But I haven't bothered to look into any of the details.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know