64
   

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 06:30 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It banned combinations of harmless cosmetic features.


So, did it ban pistol grips or not?


Within the context of my previous explanation, yes it did.


So, if pistol grips exist then they don't exist?


Away with your doublespeak.



parados wrote:
Your statements have been nonsense.


Nope. My statements have been a truth that you find highly inconvenient.



parados wrote:
Pistol grips were not banned.


Wrong. They are among the harmless cosmetic features included in the ban.



parados wrote:
Weapons were still made and sold with pistol grip during the time of the ban.


But not in combination with any of the other harmless cosmetic features.

I will point out again, banning combinations of harmless cosmetic features is just as unconstitutional as banning a single harmless cosmetic feature.



parados wrote:
That proves your statement was factually inaccurate.


No it doesn't.



parados wrote:
I'll leave you to admit it was factually inaccurate or else we can all agree that you were telling a willful lie.


I admit that I told that absolute truth, as I always do.

Your attempt to focus on a single harmless cosmetic feature and ignore the fact that the law banned combinations of harmless cosmetic features, though, that was the height of dishonesty.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 06:32 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
BillRM wrote:
Many ways and means of killing people either one at a time or in groups that do not involved firearms.


So?

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't address the gun violence problem in this country that, on a daily basis, leads to the deaths of people by firearms.


As if those victims would be less dead if you somehow managed to change the tool that was used to kill them....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 06:33 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I think that an outright ban with a three months amnesty with no compensation, and five to ten for possession thereafter and life for using a gun in the furtherance of a crime, would fix the whole problem.

The idea than gun owners would take to the barricades is preposterous.


We would take to the courts and to the ballot boxes.

The ban would be struck down. And any political party associated with the ban would pass into history.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 06:46 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
We would take to the courts and to the ballot boxes.

The ban would be struck down. And any political party associated with the ban would pass into history.


I'm sure that too was a favorite line of those opposed to the end of separate but equal, Oralboy.

You've heard the saying,

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
-- Winston Churchill
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 06:47 pm
@firefly,
Bullshit!
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 06:58 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Bullshit!


I stand awestruck.

I never expected to hear such elegance in speech from a Georgia cracker.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 07:10 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
oralloy wrote:
We would take to the courts and to the ballot boxes.

The ban would be struck down. And any political party associated with the ban would pass into history.


I'm sure that too was a favorite line of those opposed to the end of separate but equal, Oralboy.


Your childish name-calling aside, it is interesting how you conflate support for civil rights with opposition to civil rights.

Notice that the Democrats do not share your illusions about our alleged weakness. They've already backed off any form of an assault weapons ban, and will try for a magazine ban only.

The people here who keep pining for an unconstitutional ban on assault weapons, are FAR outside the mainstream.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 07:17 pm
@oralloy,
Your fear is palpable, lad.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 07:48 pm
http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/1011/the-right-to-bear-arms-demotivational-poster-1288917337.jpg
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 07:54 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Your fear is palpable, lad.


Come back to reality. The Democrats are not even going to attempt another unconstitutional ban on assault weapons, much less an unconstitutional ban on all guns.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 07:55 pm
@firefly,
That is priceless, FF!
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 08:06 pm
It may not be the Dems who sponsor curtailing the 2nd Amendment in Congress.

After shooting, some Republicans more open to gun controls
Quote:
By Patricia Zengerle and Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:43pm EST

(Reuters) - Republican lawmakers opened the door on Tuesday to a national debate about gun control following the Connecticut school massacre, a small sign of easing in Washington's reluctance to seriously consider new federal weapons restrictions.

Republican members of the House of Representatives, where the party holds a majority of seats, discussed the killings in their weekly closed-door conference meeting and said afterward there was more willingness now to talk about regulating weapons.

"You are going to have some people who never, never go there," Representative Steve LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, told reporters, referring to a small number of Republicans who will not countenance any talk of gun regulation.

"But yes, I think most Republicans are willing to have a very, very serious conversation about what this means and taking a second look at what the Second Amendment (guaranteeing the right to bear arms) means in the 21st century," he said.


Rap
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 08:13 pm
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
It may not be the Dems who sponsor curtailing the 2nd Amendment in Congress.

After shooting, some Republicans more open to gun controls
Quote:
By Patricia Zengerle and Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:43pm EST

(Reuters) - Republican lawmakers opened the door on Tuesday to a national debate about gun control following the Connecticut school massacre, a small sign of easing in Washington's reluctance to seriously consider new federal weapons restrictions.

Republican members of the House of Representatives, where the party holds a majority of seats, discussed the killings in their weekly closed-door conference meeting and said afterward there was more willingness now to talk about regulating weapons.

"You are going to have some people who never, never go there," Representative Steve LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, told reporters, referring to a small number of Republicans who will not countenance any talk of gun regulation.

"But yes, I think most Republicans are willing to have a very, very serious conversation about what this means and taking a second look at what the Second Amendment (guaranteeing the right to bear arms) means in the 21st century," he said.


Rap


Curtailing the Second Amendment would involve passing a Constitutional amendment to roll back part of the Bill of Rights.

Neither party is going to do that.
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 08:24 pm
@oralloy,
Oraboy, One only has has to recall the old Vulcan Proverb

Only Nixon could go to China

Watch what you are predicting bubbu--time and politics may show Oraboy 'the perfect' is lying here again.

Rap
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 08:29 pm
@oralloy,
Negroes aren't ever going to be set free.

We ain't never going to go to school in mixed race classes.

The USSC will never overturn Plessy v Ferguson.

Women will never get the vote.

We'll never get prohibition.

We'll never get prohibition removed.
Val Killmore
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 08:43 pm
@firefly,
....fear of gun violence? ... commonplace in America?... you saying America is like a battlefield?
I thought America only created battlefields in third world countries to selfishly horde resources.

I must be blind and deaf when I leave my home because I have never encountered gun violence first hand. Have you?

I think I know what your problem is. The problem with you is that you and a minority of the people in America see a gun and picture columbine, gangsters, accidental child suicide etc. And most of the Europeans think like that, frankly, this is why so many nosy Europeans idiotically think we have gone all completely insane.
The fact of the matter is that these things are rare relative to the whole picture (sure some may get more attention than others), however, are not a product of the existence of the gun, rather the idiocy of those who choose to either 1) Misuse them for heinous purposes 2) are irresponsible fools who do not lock them up when not to use, and such they are seen to be people who are unfit to handle firearms, and 3) people who act stupidly around guns and cost many people their rights as they pertain to weapons. For example, the police shooting of a Los angeles boy who was drawing an airsoft gun on a cop. the knee-jerk reaction was not to educate the public about the dangers of having airsoft games in public areas without notifying the police, or about brandishing anything looking like a weapon in public, but it was to introduce a bill to paint arisoft guns bright colors. An obvious counter-argument to this bill is that a criminal can just paint his gun a bright color, and brightly colored guns do exist (for example pink walther and other handguns are available for sale). Sadly, while we are not living in the wild west, we are, by no means, living in a totally safe and violence-free society, and to adequately protect oneself, one must have the tools to do so. I like guns. I enjoy shooting them, cleaning them, studying them, hunting with them, etc. I am not religious, homophobic, or bigoted, in fact i am openly agnostic. Sadly stereotypes will exist everywhere, and our culture is becoming such, and that declaring an interest in firearms can be seen as weird and socially unacceptable. Guns are inanimate objects, and should be treated as such. Yes they are dangerous, but only when misused.
We can argue hypotheticals and call each other names all day, but when you get down to it, numerous government studies, and even the Harvard law school study I posted earlier, have shown a negative correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crime rates, to conclude that more people that own guns in an area, the less crimes occur.

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 08:43 pm
@raprap,
raprap the retard wrote:
time and politics may show Oraboy 'the perfect' is lying here again.


You cannot show a single lie on my part.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 08:45 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Negroes aren't ever going to be set free.

We ain't never going to go to school in mixed race classes.

The USSC will never overturn Plessy v Ferguson.

Women will never get the vote.

We'll never get prohibition.

We'll never get prohibition removed.


You might want to try noting the difference between supporting civil rights and opposing civil rights.

But if you want to dream of something that no one is even planning to attempt, go ahead and dream.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 09:19 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You cannot show a single lie on my part.


That's a huge lie that you have often repeated, Oralboy.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2012 09:21 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You might want to try noting the difference between supporting civil rights and opposing civil rights.


Why would I want to do something that has nothing to do with my intended meaning? Tell me that you are not really this thick.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 02:47:36