Shooting at Washington Navy Yard

bravesnumberone said:
Didn't realize MLK overthrew tyrannical govt. Still wondering what this even has to do with the original topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

but

this line of questions has nothing to do with the actual topic

i was answering yours and the person that thinks the 1700's was perfect question
 
I am curious to know who and where there is a policy on the table to ban all guns?

Unless you can produce such a proposal that has a punchers chance in hell of becoming a law
quit mischaractorizing the stance of people that see a need to have weapons regulated.

It further proves you are regurgitating the rhetoric of Pro-Gun Lobbyists.
thank you/

///////////////////////////
just to be clear
People of color and the majority of US citizens pre - Civil Rights Movement viewed the state governments of the Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,Tennessee, S Carolina and the rest of the Rebel States as tyrannical.
So it really isn't too much of a stretch to say MLK non violently overthrew a tyrannical government . He probably went a little further than that. He overthrew a way of life.
Non violently
 
you can ban guns all you want, but it won't change a thing.

but criminals who want to use them will get them regardless....even this nutcase could get a weapon if he really wanted to do this.
 
NO ONE IS SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS

It further proves you are regurgitating the rhetoric of Pro-Gun Lobbyist
 
57Brave said:
NO ONE IS SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS

It further proves you are regurgitating the rhetoric of Pro-Gun Lobbyist
Click to expand...

Screaming like a little girl is going to get you no where.

Where did I say, to quote you..with screaming and bold "NO ONE IS SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS"?

I didn't. So go somewhere else with your screaming.

I said, since you lack reading comprehension, that banning any weapon: guns, knives, bare knuckles, even a brick, is not going to deter any criminal or those with criminal intent from obtaining said weapons.

You do know there is a difference between ANY and ALL?
 
AerchAngel said:
Screaming like a little girl is going to get you no where.

Where did I say, to quote you..with screaming and bold "NO ONE IS SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS"?

I didn't. So go somewhere else with your screaming.

I said, since you lack reading comprehension, that banning any weapon: guns, knives, bare knuckles, even a brick, is not going to deter any criminal or those with criminal intent from obtaining said weapons.

You do know there is a difference between ANY and ALL?
Click to expand...

Gosh, why bother making anything illegal, if people are just going to do it anyway?
 
Julio3000 said:
Gosh, why bother making anything illegal, if people are just going to do it anyway?
Click to expand...

That sums it up.

We can ban everything that contributes violence in this world but those with criminal intent will still be a criminal and do the dirty deed. It MIGHT make it a bit harder, but inevitably it will end up with the same results.
 
goldfly said:
obviously anarchy is the only way to go then
Click to expand...

It's already here I'm afraid.

Most of the violent crimes are 2nd time felons who for the most part can't obtain any weapons (a law, aka ban), so that banned weapon they procured must have come from somewhere.

Criminals will be criminals and if anything is banned it hurts the non-criminals more and won't be able to defend themselves, George Zimmerman notwithstanding.
 
Or you approach it from a different angle. Banning alcohol didn't work, just like banning guns won't work, but it's still illegal to drink and drive. Go after those who use guns irresponsibly without trampling on the rights of the 99%+ (or whatever the number is) that are responsible owners/users.
 
acesfull86 said:
Or you approach it from a different angle. Banning alcohol didn't work, just like banning guns won't work, but it's still illegal to drink and drive. Go after those who use guns irresponsibly without trampling on the rights of the 99%+ (or whatever the number is) that are responsible owners/users.
Click to expand...

I support that idea, but I'd posit that any attempt to do so would be energetically opposed as a gun grab.
 
AerchAngel said:
you can ban guns all you want, but it won't change a thing.

but criminals who want to use them will get them regardless....even this nutcase could get a weapon if he really wanted to do this.
Click to expand...

no one is seriously talking about banning all or any guns.
There, is that better

How can we have a discussion on how to stymy gun violence and mass shootings when half of the participants of the dialogue are dealing in untruths?
 
acesfull86 said:
Or you approach it from a different angle. Banning alcohol didn't work, just like banning guns won't work, but it's still illegal to drink and drive. Go after those who use guns irresponsibly without trampling on the rights of the 99%+ (or whatever the number is) that are responsible owners/users.
Click to expand...

Isn't part of going after those that can be predicted to abuse a firearm -- identification?
How other than background checks would you identify an Alexis or even a George Zimmerman?
 
bravesnumberone said:
We've learned time and time again that's the case. Legislation isn't going to change our culture or change people's hearts (or a lack of one).
Click to expand...

See
cigarette smoking
seat belt laws
safety lids on over the counter medicines
food inspections
traffic lights

need to go on? Government (We the People) making laws is how we keep order in a society.
What are your proposals for keeping order. Scolding everyone to be more responsible .
 
Background checks should be able to have worthy merit, but like with anything else, there will need to be some discussion of what goes into those. Just banning the manufacturing or selling of certain fire arms to put on a political pose isn't solving anything.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Background checks should be able to have worthy merit, but like with anything else, there will need to be some discussion of what goes into those. Just banning the manufacturing or selling of certain fire arms to put on a political pose isn't solving anything.
Click to expand...



Where is there a formal proposal to "Just banning the manufacturing or selling of certain fire arms"

I've been asking all day, called a little girl ,suggested I was illiterate and scolded by a former mod but still have not seen what it is y'all are talking about
 
The question is frequently asked "Why does a person need to own this type of gun?" Then, there's that absurd graphic earlier in the thread. Dianne Feinstein, specifically, has actively tried to ban, yes, ban, some of these weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top