President Obama is with his family and having fun. His daughters won't be taking those guns to school.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
President Obama is with his family and having fun. His daughters won't be taking those guns to school.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Can any of you just laugh or is sarcasm to tough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Backatcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What was I supposed to find humorous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yes, he's a good dad, especially given his position.Quote:
So the president shouldn't set the example?
Right over your heads.
I've often stated here that saving one child was worth the fight against the abortion holocaust. Well, a reporter posed an interesting question to the pro-gun control rep from Colorado that didn't know magazines could be reloaded...
Well, what about it? Why wouldn't the same logic apply with late term abortions?Quote:
CNSNews.com asked DeGette, “Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”
DeGette said, “Well, this is, this is. … We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”
“And, and if you look at the perceived—if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life,” DeGette said. “Any other questions?”
When CNSNews.com tried to follow up, DeGette said, “No, excuse me. Any other questions?”
By that logic apple pie is as delicious as mud pies. If you can register your car, why can't you register your gun?
Why don't you buy a dress for your son when you buy one for your daughter?
Yes, the mother should be charged with murder.Quote:
Well, what about it? Why wouldn't the same logic apply with late term abortions?
Watergate?? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That would be because there is no right written into the constitution for owning a car. But there is one for owning a gun ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Don't want to answer the question either, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Fascinating these leaps of logic are
If you are asking ME why I don't apply the same logic to late term abortions as I do gun safety its because they are two very different subjects.
Sen, Degettes logic is her own, as is her conduct. I have stated my logic in the explanations of the positions I have expressed on both subjects so your question is illogical to me.
Yes they are different subjects, one involves the legalized murder of a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And the other is the killing of innocents humans. They both need solutions. Even if I had to redefine my rights to save one life. I think we can save MORE than one with the proper approaches, and solve other pressing problems also. Stopping abortions and keeping our streets safe is more complex than saying you shouldn't do it and the root causes need to be addressed.
See that's where we disagree, both involve the killing of innocent humans, one with the blessing of the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Deleted and moved to proper thread.
Hello again, Steve:
I see your penchant for bringing up obscure people, and their obscure logic, as though it MEANS something to the rest of us, hasn't subsided...
excon
PS> (edited) Well, if you think I'm going to follow you around to criticize you, you got another think coming.
Coming from the guy that made an issue of Steven Seagal? She's injected herself into the gun control debate in a big way, I believe that makes it quite relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And the other is the failure of the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Uh no, the failure is in legalizing infanticide.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
XXMan - this is totally plagerized, word for word: “In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay ...” http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fa...rk-city%60s.as
If you didn’t write it, please give credit to the person who did.
Link not working.Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
I never claimed to have written it. It was taken from an NRA website. Someone asked to see it and I copy and pasted it... I should have just put the link up for it...Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Well that's certainly a credible source of unbiased information.
No comment about the NRA.
When something is not in quotes, it is presumed that you wrote it. I only noticed this because the "all legal guns are registered" answer was sent to me and, of course, that is not true.
Oh certainly... all of mine aren't... and they were never required to be when I got them... and they are never going to be either.
You and I have one group of friends; xxman has another (apparently).
I would think that bias at the NRA is expected, that's what advocates do. Anyway, here is an operable link to the item.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Sorry - I didn't post the link because the quote was 100% accurate.
No problem, just trying to help.
Thank you! I will save that link. And yes the NRA is bias... BUT... it is all factual... it does not fold under the scrutiny as does the restrictive gun lobby... anyway... If you wish to see how people really die in the us then check the cdc website Centers for Disease Control and Prevention... look at all the pieces of the puzzle and make your own conclusions... Thanks again and a nice weekendQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No problem posting the link - I have no idea what Disease Control has to do with a thread on gun control.
In my search for true facts... from both anti gun and the NRA... I searched where they get the numbers for all the deaths and injury caused by guns in general... it was strange that the number of shootings the anti gun lobby talk about include accidental shootings ( mostly law enforcement... due to the fact they load and unload their guns sometimes several time a day depending where the need to gain admittance to ) suicides and of course drug related incidents... the actual murder rate with a gun is statistical speaking very low... and extremely low with a so called assault rifle. BUT more people die each year from house hold accidents, accidental poisoning from household chemicals and / or car accidents ( should cars be manufactured that have the ability to break the speed limit laws ?) Unfortunately there is no place to obtain the number of times that having a firearm has saved some ones life... In my humble opinion it all comes down to mental health... crazy people do crazy things... and there's not much anyone can do after these disillusioned people act out against society... we can only try to see the warning signs a bit clearer... maybe look a bit closer... pay a little more attention to the people around us... offer help if we can... of course there are those that are not disillusioned... they are the criminal / violent / evil element strung throughout society... I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves from this type element... a wise man once said... a long long time ago... "Evil cannot be defeated by running from it"... SocratesQuote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
I think this has turned far afield - I also saw this: "“The rate of firearms deaths has exceeded traffic fatalities in several states, including Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon, records show. The rate is equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania. In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/"
How many people drive cars? How many people have firearms? I'd like to see that "user/accident" ratio.
At any rate I have a carry permit for work. I'm not losing anything under any new law.
I think what you may lose is choice in some areas. As in the changes to NY law should you decide to carry a semiauto instead of a revolver then you are limited in capacity. Just like California has laws regarding capacity. With the type of work that you do why should your choices be limited and not based upon your personal choices?Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
I agree, and I agree that everyone should have the right to decide. I'm just saying I am happy with what I have, do not intend to arm myself to the teeth.
- although it's not a bad idea.
Its not abut arming to the teeth. Its about choice. Lets say that instead of carrying a Smith & Wesson airweight snubnose which is limited in its capacity but still a good choice for a carry gun. You decide you want to carry/conceal a Sig P250 sc.(semiauto pistol) It only weighs 2 lbs fully loaded and can be a comfortable choice too. But the problen is that in 9mm it has a 12 round capacity. Making it Illegal in NY and California. To me that is not arming to the teeth nor anything extrodinary. Its just a matter of choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Would ten rounds (or 7) change that choice?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 PM. |