Member since September 15, 2008
This user has no shared collections.
View More Collections
Why don't you go browse some
and pick a few to favorite?
commented on Gary Varvel
3 days ago
He would not have been able to kill anyone if he didn’t first put his finger on the trigger of the weapon he chose and pull it. The inanimate object did nothing on it’s own. Nothing. THAT’s reality."
Your response is a non-sequitur. Had he not had a weapon capable of firing so many rounds in a few seconds he would not have killed 49 people. THAT’S reality.
“Other than illogical thinking you seem to believe it’s easy to by a gun. Go try it.”
I cannot respond to your charge of “illogical thinking” without some specifics. Regarding buying a gun, any fool today can go to a gun show and buy whatever he/she wants with no background checks. The NRA is fighting like crazy against attempts to close that loophole.
“Not a deliberate act, but Coconut Grove killed 492.”
True, though Narrowminded was implying that one lone assassin/arsonist could burn a building down killing the crowd inside. I was thinking that the people inside could break the door down and escape, though that obviously did not happen at Coconut Grove or the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. As you point out, however, fire safety standards have come a long way in recent years making such disasters much less likely.
“How about matches? Since we’re dealing in hypotheticals, what if he barred all the doors and set the place on fire? Perhaps 300 dead. Guess matches are next on the list.”.When was the last time a lone assassin was able to kill 300 people in one building by barring the doors and setting the building on fire? Your contention is ridiculous..“What if one person had broken the gun free zone law, had a pistol, and shot the shooter at the beginning of the slaughter?”.Such as a trained security guard? I would have no problem with that, and that guard wouldn’t have to do it illegally. I question, however, whether one person with a pistol would have been able to stop a deranged person with a semi-automatic assault rifle..“Also, do you think this guy cared about obeying the law?”.Obviously not. What’s your point? Should we make it easy for him to buy a weapon that no one outside of the police or military has any business owning?
commented on Clay Jones
3 days ago
Nonsense. If we can ban people the FBI determines to be potential terrorists from flying in planes, we can ban them from buying assault rifles.
You are the one who needs to get a grip on reality. Please answer the question: Do you think the Orlando shooter would have been able to kill 49 people with a baseball bat, knife, or, as would have been the case when the second amendment was passed, a front loading flintlock musket?
commented on Momma
4 days ago
Thomas is probably the only one of the three who really knew his father.
commented on Views of the World
5 days ago
Re-read my comments. You have twisted around everything I said and put some words into my mouth that I never uttered.
“Looks like you can’t stand it when you can’t defend your argument so you go strait to the insults and hope they win the argument for you.”.Just where did I go “straight for the insults”? Seems to me that’s what Bruce 4671 did when he called me a “tool”..“If you want to keep only the rights that were in place with the technology at the time they were written, shut down your computer and start hitching up your wagon to go get the plow to plant your garden. Really.”.Where did I say we should not use new technology? .“Keep it at the tech level as it was when written? No.”.Most of us recognize that today is different from 1790, so that rules written back then may need some modifications. Back around 1900 many states had laws requiring motorcars to be proceeded by someone with a flag to warn people that their horses and livestock might be startled. Times have changed.
“OH wait, you do mean the military version of all weapons right?”.I mean a weapon that any nut can carry into a crowded school, theater, or club and use to kill ten, twenty, thirty, or more people..“You want to limit the rights of millions of your fellow citizens because YOU are afraid.”.No, I want to prevent people who are deemed so dangerous that they are not allowed on passenger planes from walking into a gun show and buying any weapon they want without a background check.." IF you were to rid the world of the 2nd, how is it that you will protect the other rights from harm?".I know of no one who wants to rid the world of the 2nd amendment. I do, however, want my own country to take the first part of the amendment seriously; the part about a well-regulated militia..“Oh that’s right you don’t want to take guns away (LOL), you just want to make sure certain people can not buy certain guns. Just l like certain people can not say certain words or certain religions can not obey their God (hey it’s guaranteed by the 1st that they can) and practice their religion as they see fit.”.Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Your worship of Jesus, Allah, Zeus, or Buddha does not threaten people’s lives. Worship of guns does..“And with the NSA doing their thing, the people have NO RIGHT to privacy.”.If the NSA is invading people’s privacy without just cause, they should not be. That has nothing to do with crazy people walking around with assault weapons..“So now you want to force people that have never broken a law to give up their rights?”.Where did I say that?.“And my brother, the only reason the Orlando shooter stopped shooting is because an armed person showed up and shot him, BUT, only after over a hundred people were killed or wounded.”.Had he been armed with only a knife or a flintlock musket he would only have killed or wounded one or two people..“You are not thinking you are reacting [sic] along the very lines that the media has drawn for you. Puppet.”.You are not thinking; you are reacting along the very lines that the NRA has drawn for you. Oh, and you need to learn basic grammer including use of punctuations.
Copyright © 2016. Universal Uclick, All rights reserved.