Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Yea, arm little 5 year old girls and boys with guns
that will stop the senseless violence. Insane...
WHATAYAMEAN "Insane"???? Thay were KILLED in the school!
How much worse cud it get than that????
Will u explain that, please, Rex????

I wish that the victims had been armed well enuf
to kill the criminal predators; at that age, I imagine
that some of them cud have aimed and fired correctly
and others cud not do so. Its better to try. Give them defensive training.

David

When I was in school it was not the threat of gun violence, it was bomb threats by miscreants...

Shall we arm the kids with bombs too?

Your logic breaks down and FAILS there which only indicates your entire premise is on shaky ground.

No, we first stop the gun lobbyists from paying republicans to peddle and glamorize guns in a consumeristic way.

In other words, severely limit gun possession to minors and crazies. A minor can not smoke a cigarette that gradually kills over time but they can own a rapid killing implement? Parents who give their children access to weapons should be fined and prosecuted and even jailed just as parents who allow their minor children to smoke cigarettes and supply them alcohol.

We did not have kids shooting up schools when guns were less plentiful than Baribies and G.I. Joes...

If children are not indoctrinated with guns as youths it is less likely they will carry gun obsessions to adulthood...

Children need to learn to take out their grievances in non violent constructive ways.

That is what "growing up" is all about...

1 Reply

I still recall my nephew that I raised for 20 years standing in the dark by the front door. We had gotten home late that day and he was left alone for a couple hours.

He was terrified about being "home alone" (he watched the movie).

Here we lived in a small town where we never even locked the front door, ever, not even at night...

He had gotten some alder branches and stretched a piece of yarn to make the alder branch taunt and had another alder branch as an arrow.

I recall his words. He was in the dark and could not even see who was at the door. He heard my voice... I was with my mother when we opened the door and he said, "Ooo, uncle, I almost shot you! "...as the arrow feebly fell to the ground.

Should I have furnished this ten year old boy with a gun for "protection"?

Should he have had his own arsenal?

1 Reply

@RexRed,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Yea, arm little 5 year old girls and boys with guns
that will stop the senseless violence. Insane...
WHATAYAMEAN "Insane"???? Thay were KILLED in the school!
How much worse cud it get than that????
Will u explain that, please, Rex????

I wish that the victims had been armed well enuf
to kill the criminal predators; at that age, I imagine
that some of them cud have aimed and fired correctly
and others cud not do so. Its better to try. Give them defensive training.

David

RexRed wrote:

When I was in school it was not the threat of gun violence,
it was bomb threats by miscreants...

A malcontented school custodian in Upstate New York
around the 1930s blew up a school,
inflicting the historical maximum
number of casualties among students.

RexRed wrote:

Shall we arm the kids with bombs too?

No; too bulky; awkward. Its too hard to aim them.
Just use guns. Thay r easier.

RexRed wrote:

Your logic breaks down and FAILS there
which only indicates your entire premise is on shaky ground.

No.

RexRed wrote:

No, we first stop the gun lobbyists from paying republicans
to peddle and glamorize guns in a consumeristic way.

I do that for FREE, Rex.
I don t need to get paid.

RexRed wrote:

In other words, severely limit gun possession to minors and crazies.

By what AUTHORITY, Rex???
By the same authority that u have to MAKE people go to Church,
if thay wanna stay home and sleep???

RexRed wrote:

A minor can not smoke a cigarette that gradually kills over time
but they can own a rapid killing implement?

Yes, of course!
He can get killed, if he is helpless, without it.
Gun possession is a way of CONTROLLING a predatory emergency.

RexRed wrote:

Parents who give their children access to weapons
should be fined and prosecuted and even jailed just as parents
who allow their minor children to smoke cigarettes and supply them alcohol.

I got a better idea, to wit:
parents who fail to give their children guns of their own choice,
shud be flogged and salted for criminal negligence.
If we are going to throw out the 2nd Amendment,
then Y not throw out the 8th Amendment as well???

Do u think that your prohibition against guns 'd be
as successful as the prohibition against marijuana or beer ??

RexRed wrote:

We did not have kids shooting up schools when guns were less plentiful than Baribies and G.I. Joes...

If children are not indoctrinated with guns as youths
it is less likely they will carry gun obsessions to adulthood...

U can say the same about music or mathematics.

RexRed wrote:

Children need to learn to take out their grievances in non violent constructive ways.

That is what "growing up" is all about...

If he has defensive guns,
then he can live long enuf to "grow up".

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

A man armed with a gun entered a cell phone store on Chicago’s South Side
and attempted to rob the establishment. The clerk on duty responded
to the threat by retrieving a gun and shooting the criminal, killing him.

Police have identified the deceased robber as a convict who was
paroled earlier in the year. The criminal had been serving time for
armed robbery with a firearm. (The Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill. 12/11/13)

So...that is 33,173 to 1. You still have 33,172 more to go, David.

NO. That number includes SUICIDE. Everyone is perfectly within his rights
to end his human life, if so he opts. Yes??????

Presumably, that number 's "homicide" component
includes DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE: that means
that the victim successfully killed the predator
and that is super-wonderful!!!!!,
the occasion for great JOY!

Are you actually suggesting that your take on this evens things up?????

Explain the question ???

Several of us have been saying that a gun in a home is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be used against someone in the home than is self-defense.

You gave one example of a gun being used for defense against the 33,173 times where guns were used to kill in the home. Then you mentioned that some of the 33,173 were suicides.

Are you saying that you have successfully defended against our statement…that what we are saying is wrong because you have shown an equality of some sort?

Hope that is clearer.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

A man armed with a gun entered a cell phone store on Chicago’s South Side
and attempted to rob the establishment. The clerk on duty responded
to the threat by retrieving a gun and shooting the criminal, killing him.

Police have identified the deceased robber as a convict who was
paroled earlier in the year. The criminal had been serving time for
armed robbery with a firearm. (The Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill. 12/11/13)

So...that is 33,173 to 1. You still have 33,172 more to go, David.

NO. That number includes SUICIDE. Everyone is perfectly within his rights
to end his human life, if so he opts. Yes??????

Presumably, that number 's "homicide" component
includes DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE: that means
that the victim successfully killed the predator
and that is super-wonderful!!!!!,
the occasion for great JOY!

Are you actually suggesting that your take on this evens things up?????

Explain the question ???

Several of us have been saying that a gun in a home is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be used against someone in the home than is self-defense.

You gave one example of a gun being used for defense against the 33,173 times where guns were used to kill in the home. Then you mentioned that some of the 33,173 were suicides.

Are you saying that you have successfully defended against our statement…that what we are saying is wrong
because you have shown an equality of some sort?

Hope that is clearer.

Thank u.
Yes. The figure is equally useless to either pro-freedom advocates
or to suppressionists, in that rightful and proper killings
(i.e., suicides and defensive homicides) were hopelessly
combined with accidental deaths.

1 Reply

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1472903_10151873050391275_1980494074_n.jpg

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

A man armed with a gun entered a cell phone store on Chicago’s South Side
and attempted to rob the establishment. The clerk on duty responded
to the threat by retrieving a gun and shooting the criminal, killing him.

Police have identified the deceased robber as a convict who was
paroled earlier in the year. The criminal had been serving time for
armed robbery with a firearm. (The Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill. 12/11/13)

So...that is 33,173 to 1. You still have 33,172 more to go, David.

NO. That number includes SUICIDE. Everyone is perfectly within his rights
to end his human life, if so he opts. Yes??????

Presumably, that number 's "homicide" component
includes DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE: that means
that the victim successfully killed the predator
and that is super-wonderful!!!!!,
the occasion for great JOY!

Are you actually suggesting that your take on this evens things up?????

Explain the question ???

Several of us have been saying that a gun in a home is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be used against someone in the home than is self-defense.

You gave one example of a gun being used for defense against the 33,173 times where guns were used to kill in the home. Then you mentioned that some of the 33,173 were suicides.

Are you saying that you have successfully defended against our statement…that what we are saying is wrong
because you have shown an equality of some sort?

Hope that is clearer.
Thank u.
Yes. The figure is equally useless to either pro-freedom advocates
or to suppressionists, in that rightful and proper killings
(i.e., suicides and defensive homicides) were hopelessly
combined with accidental deaths.

Sure!

If that makes you feel you have successfully dealt with the original statement...go with it.

The original statement was a variation on: A gun in a home is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be used against someone in the home than to repel an attack or home invasion.

And, David...

A GUN IN A HOME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE USED AGAINST SOMEONE IN THE HOME THAN TO REPEL AN ATTACK OR HOME INVASION.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

A GUN IN A HOME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE USED AGAINST SOMEONE IN THE HOME THAN TO REPEL AN ATTACK OR HOME INVASION.

Which proves nothing because repelling an attack is legitimate and cannot be set aside simply because of the behaviour of others embroiled in tiffs or being incompetent.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

A man armed with a gun entered a cell phone store on Chicago’s South Side
and attempted to rob the establishment. The clerk on duty responded
to the threat by retrieving a gun and shooting the criminal, killing him.

Police have identified the deceased robber as a convict who was
paroled earlier in the year. The criminal had been serving time for
armed robbery with a firearm. (The Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill. 12/11/13)

So...that is 33,173 to 1. You still have 33,172 more to go, David.

NO. That number includes SUICIDE. Everyone is perfectly within his rights
to end his human life, if so he opts. Yes??????

Presumably, that number 's "homicide" component
includes DEFENSIVE HOMICIDE: that means
that the victim successfully killed the predator
and that is super-wonderful!!!!!,
the occasion for great JOY!

Are you actually suggesting that your take on this evens things up?????

Explain the question ???

Several of us have been saying that a gun in a home is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be used against someone in the home than is self-defense.

You gave one example of a gun being used for defense against the 33,173 times where guns were used to kill in the home. Then you mentioned that some of the 33,173 were suicides.

Are you saying that you have successfully defended against our statement…that what we are saying is wrong
because you have shown an equality of some sort?

Hope that is clearer.
Thank u.
Yes. The figure is equally useless to either pro-freedom advocates
or to suppressionists, in that rightful and proper killings
(i.e., suicides and defensive homicides) were hopelessly
combined with accidental deaths.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sure!

If that makes you feel you have successfully dealt with the original statement...go with it.

OK, but the "original statement"
was like a bubble in nothingness
insofar as usefulness was concerned.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The original statement was a variation on:
A gun in a home is MUCH MORE LIKELY to be used against someone
in the home than to repel an attack or home invasion.

For the sake of argument,
let us imagine that there were any truth in that.
The fact remains that any vicim STILL has an absolute right to defend himself
and to use the equipment that he finds necessary to aid his survival.
Government has no authority to interfere. Its within the citizen 's personal discretion,
the same as whether he will stay home from Church and sleep or not.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And, David...

A GUN IN A HOME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE USED AGAINST SOMEONE IN THE HOME THAN TO REPEL AN ATTACK OR HOME INVASION.

BULLoney !!!

Its better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it. (That can get embarrassing.)

David

0 Replies

Former Prime Minister

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/734195_10151818711482135_1589405516_n.jpg

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Former Prime Minister

Yes, its not a free country.
The 2nd Amendment does not apply there.

David

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:
And, David...

A GUN IN A HOME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE USED AGAINST SOMEONE IN THE HOME THAN TO REPEL AN ATTACK OR HOME INVASION.
David Wrote:
BULLoney !!!

Its better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it. (That can get embarrassing.)

RexRed Comment:

It is statistically NOT better to have a gun and not need it...

David, you can say "BULLoney" the cows come home but your own "bull" and the FACTS are not matching up... Do you ever even Google for basic statistics before you make such an uninformed response?

Excerpt: The 2011 study “Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit” showed that a gun is more likely to send a family member to the emergency room or the morgue than to ever be used against an intruder.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-person-youre-most-likely-to-kill-with-your-gun-is-you/

Comment: Do you even care about your family or is promoting guns a greater priority? You are just simply WRONG and you are advocating not the protection of a household but the demise thereof. There are cold hard statistics to back up this assertion.

Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

YOU WILL BE TESTED TO SEE IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS ARTICLE... Question: What fruit is mentioned in the article David?

Answer______________?

Can you show statistics where guns in the home are used MORE for self-defense than self annihilation or that of others?

NO... You can't. So Who is peddling the BULLoney here?

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

I still recall my nephew that I raised for 20 years standing in the dark by the front door.
We had gotten home late that day and he was left alone for a couple hours.

He was terrified about being "home alone" (he watched the movie).

When I was 8 and home alone every day after school
and all day on Saturdays, I felt mildly un-easy,
until I acquired my first .38 revolver and began working out with it.

RexRed wrote:

Here we lived in a small town where we never even locked
the front door, ever, not even at night...

He had gotten some alder branches and stretched a piece of yarn
to make the alder branch taunt and had another alder branch as an arrow.

Some guys still chip off their own flint arrowheads,
like the Indians used to do; awesome, no kidding.
I wud not do that, but it still impresses me a lot.

RexRed wrote:

I recall his words. He was in the dark
and could not even see who was at the door. He heard my voice...
I was with my mother when we opened the door and he said,
"Ooo, uncle, I almost shot you! "...as the arrow feebly fell to the ground.

Its to your CREDIT that he likes u enuf
to wish to avoid shooting u.

RexRed wrote:

Should I have furnished this ten year old boy with a gun for "protection"?

That depends on the degree of personal danger to which he is exposed.

RexRed wrote:

Should he have had his own arsenal?

I don t know him well enuf to reply.
I know that my own anxiety ended upon my acquisition
of my first defensive gun. He shud be well trained and drilled
in safe, competent and accurate gun handling procedures,
with plenty of hands-on practice, if he wants it.

David

0 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And, David...

A GUN IN A HOME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE USED AGAINST SOMEONE IN THE HOME THAN TO REPEL AN ATTACK OR HOME INVASION.
David Wrote:
BULLoney !!!

Its better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it. (That can get embarrassing.)

RexRed Comment:

It is statistically NOT better to have a gun and not need it...

David, you can say "BULLoney" the cows come home but your own "bull" and the FACTS are not matching up... Do you ever even Google for basic statistics before you make such an uninformed response?

Excerpt: The 2011 study “Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit” showed that a gun is more likely to send a family member to the emergency room or the morgue than to ever be used against an intruder.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-person-youre-most-likely-to-kill-with-your-gun-is-you/

Comment: Do you even care about your family or is promoting guns a greater priority? You are just simply WRONG and you are advocating not the protection of a household but the demise thereof. There are cold hard statistics to back up this assertion.

Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

YOU WILL BE TESTED TO SEE IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS ARTICLE... Question: What fruit is mentioned in the article David?

Answer______________?

Can you show statistics where guns in the home are used MORE for self-defense than self annihilation or that of others?

NO... You can't. So Who is peddling the BULLoney here?

Lemme get back to u, Red. I 'm falling asleep.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Sleep well David, catch you tomorrow friend. Smile

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

RexRed wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And, David...

A GUN IN A HOME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE USED AGAINST
SOMEONE IN THE HOME THAN TO REPEL AN ATTACK OR HOME INVASION.

DAVID wrote:

BULLoney !!!

Its better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it. (That can get embarrassing.)

RexRed wrote:

It is statistically NOT better to have a gun and not need it...

I don t believe that 's true,
but for the moment, let us assume that it is true.
IF u have a criminal or a dangerous animal attacking u,
then statistics are of no concern. To illustrate my point,
suppose that u have a beloved family member or friend
(maybe your mom or your nephew) in your presence
who is being violently attacked in front of u,
then presumably, u 'd like to help out, right ???
U need the emergency equipment that is most likely
to successfully effect his or her rescue, right?? Its not enuf
to call 911 or animal control and wait for the results.
(Historically, that has taken several hours, or several days, sometimes.)
The predator is already THERE. How long does it take to get killed
or permanently injured??? It is of little avail,
to call out to the bloody victim about statistics
during the savage fight. Yes????
Will u agree with me on that, Rex ?

RexRed wrote:

David, you can say "BULLoney" the cows come home
but your own "bull" and the FACTS are not matching up...

Its a fact that every predatory event is a CONTEST OF POWER.
Thus, it behooves the victim to apply MORE power against the predator
than that predator is able to apply against him. Yes?? Am I right or rong about that??
CAN the predator prevail IF his victim applies more power than he does???
Whatayathink about that ???

RexRed wrote:

Do you ever even Google for basic statistics before you make such an uninformed response?

Ug; not ofen. U cawt me. I 'm a lazy un-Googler, Rex.
Maybe, I 'll try to do better.

RexRed wrote:

Excerpt: The 2011 study “Guns in the home provide greater health
risk than benefit” showed that a gun is more likely to send a family member
to the emergency room or the morgue than to ever be used against an intruder.

Rex, for years, decades and centuries,
I have advocated that the public schools teach n train students,
from the youngest possible years, to learn safe, competent, and accurate
defensive gun handling tactics. Thay shud all get abundant practice, practice
and keep practicing; good thing that its FUN!
That way, if an emergency arises, competent defense will deploy reflexively, because of so much training.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-person-youre-most-likely-to-kill-with-your-gun-is-you/
Those statistics will serve as a good n competent basis
for exhorting early education in good defensive gunnery practice!

RexRed wrote:

Comment: Do you even care about your family or is promoting guns a greater priority?

When I carry a spare tire in my trunk,
its purpose protection from flat tires,
NOT a greater priority of promoting tires.
I want all future victims to have GREATER POWER
than their predators and to inflict poetic justice upon them
by making holes in the bad guys where thay don t like it.

When I was younger, I used to go to the movies, primarily
to look at the nice young actresses, of my choice. Ofen,
there was some bad guy chasing them with some kind of
garden tool to be applied as a weapon. I used to wish I cud yell
to them about GETTING GUNS (maybe a nice MP5)
and doing a job on the predator. MP5s are very sweet, Rex;
small n compact; its as if Heckler & Koch repealed Newton 's
3rd Law of Motion.

RexRed wrote:

You are just simply WRONG and you are advocating
not the protection of a household but the demise thereof.
There are cold hard statistics to back up this assertion.

Historically, those hard statistics have been hoaxes cooked up by authoritarians
to trick freedom-lovers out of exercising their Constitutional rights.
Your philosophy exhorts victims to confront violence with helplessness.
U wish to fight violence with docility.

RexRed wrote:

Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense

IF students, in early youth,
have been sufficiently trained, drilled and repeatedly practiced in
competent, safe and effective defensive battle tactics in school,
then there will be higher intelligence rendered during self defense.

RexRed wrote:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

YOU WILL BE TESTED TO SEE IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS ARTICLE...
Question: What fruit is mentioned in the article David?

Answer_bananas, Rex._____________?

Can you show statistics where guns in the home are used MORE
for self-defense than self annihilation or that of others?

U put me to shame, Rex.
I must admit that I bought such books
that were offered for sale at defensive freedom meetings,
but I did not yet read those statistical books; then thay were lost in a fire.
I might replace them; I dunno.

RexRed wrote:

NO... You can't. So Who is peddling the BULLoney here?

The opponents of freedom of personal defense are, Rex.
IF u or your favorite person get locked into a lethal struggle,
I hope that your power will exceed that of your predator.
I hope that u will have the necessary equipment to survive the experience.

I did.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You are missing the point...

Gun freak parents are giving their children guns and the chance of them using the weapon for protection is next to nil while the chance of them doing themselves and innocent others harm is EXTREMELY likely.

So "good" parents keep their children way from guns, "bad" parents give their children guns.

Ever play chicken with whittling knives when you were a kid? You may get a knife wound but you will probably not die... This demonstrates that juveniles are not mature enough to responsibly own and carry guns.

Should drunks be allowed to bring guns into a bar?

Your idea of everyone armed to the hilt all the time comes in direct opposition to "the pursuit of happiness" when you can be gunned down by some deranged and disgruntled drunk or youth for no reason at all.

How dare you shut me off from alcohol! BANG!

How dare you take away my allowance! BANG!

You are proposing that people use guns to settle disputes rather than reason and judicial avenues...

This is not rule of law, this is terrorism.

Proverbs 14
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

2 Replies

@RexRed,

Is everyone in your world completely mental?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I will leave that question for you to decide...

6 hours ago:
NH man gets 35 to life for fatally shooting wife
http://news.yahoo.com/nh-man-gets-35-life-fatally-shooting-wife-155045398.html

0 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

You are missing the point...

Gun freak parents are giving their children guns
and the chance of them using the weapon for protection
is next to nil while the chance of them doing themselves
and innocent others harm is EXTREMELY likely.

I disapprove of age discrimination;
e.g., the children of Andrea Yates were un-armed,
in full compliance with ALL anti-freedom gun laws
and thay got drowned in filthy water in the family bath tub, by Andrea.
I wish that some of the victims had been able to get defensive weapons
and survived their mom's attempted murders.

The supporters of gun control prefer the Yates family problems
to have evolved in mass juvenile death, the way that thay DID
with NO violation of any gun control law.

RexRed wrote:

So "good" parents keep their children way from guns,
"bad" parents give their children guns.

In order to defend their LIVES,
children wud need to do whatever is necessary to arm themselves.
I found that ez; guns were abundant artifacts of personal preference.
My nabors were much better armed than I was.
There was never any trouble that I heard of.

RexRed wrote:

Ever play chicken with whittling knives when you were a kid?

I did not; no.

RexRed wrote:

You may get a knife wound but you will probably not die...

Well, I 've been told that I died 2ice,
under a surgeon 's knife.

RexRed wrote:

This demonstrates that juveniles are not mature enough
to responsibly own and carry guns.

What an insult!
Shame on U, Rex!!
An aged-based insult; no better than a race-based insult.

RexRed wrote:

Should drunks be allowed to bring guns into a bar?

According to the Bill of Rights, there shud be NO LAW related to guns,
the same as there is no law qua religion,
but people can be and shud be held to account for their actions.

RexRed wrote:

Your idea of everyone armed to the hilt all the time
comes in direct opposition to "the pursuit of happiness" when you can
be gunned down by some deranged and disgruntled drunk or youth for no reason at all.

No. That is false. Since age 8, I have been HAPPY Constitutionally bearing arms in my own defense.

RexRed wrote:

How dare you shut me off from alcohol! BANG!

How dare you take away my allowance! BANG!

NO, Rex.
That is only fantasy; it is your anti-freedom,
pro-authoritarian psychology, in action. In Vermont
which has NEVER had any anti-gun laws or in Alaska, Arizona,
or Wyoming, who have conformed thereto, that has not happened.

RexRed wrote:

You are proposing that people use guns to settle disputes
rather than reason and judicial avenues...

NO. U r pretending, faking, the reading of my mind INACCURATELY.

David

0 Replies

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know