Where is the link I requested? Can you just say anything without having to provide any evidence? - - - Updated - - - Well that was a personal attack. I get it. It comes from fear. Fear that you might be wrong. And that requires you to attack. But its kind of sad
What is the reason you want these things? What would the cut off be for mentally ill? Have you seen a psychologist lately, no guns for you? The first question is the one I would like you to answer. Turtledude already ripped it up. I really want to know why you personally ant these things. Is not a debate all about personal positions argued civilly. Sorry if that to personal.
I have noticed lots of people that want those things are also people prohibited from owning Guns, Felons or Adjudicated as ill.
why do you demand we provide links to stuff that is undeniable and has been posted hundreds of times on this board while at the same time you refuse to supply ANY facts to back up your speculation about your restrictions you wish to impose on honest gun owners and the faith based belief that such restrictions will actually hamper real criminals. I want you to tell me the following 1) you are unaware that Hillary has called for Heller to be overturned 2) or you deny that she said that 3) that you are unaware that Hillary has praised the gun ban laws in England and Australia or 4) you deny she has said that if you know she has called for those things-then you are being dishonest demanding links when you know its true if you don't know those facts, then you really aren't keeping up on this subject and if you deny it, we will laugh because the proof is all over the place
I want them because I believe they will reduce the bloodbath of gun violence in this country. To do nothing is criminal - - - Updated - - - Then it should be very easy for you to provide it....but you haven't. Hmmmmmm
You can't be serious, there is absolutely no way any of those proposals will in any way reduce Violence of any kind in this Country, not even foot Violence of stink foot.
so I am asking you are you denying she said that are you unaware she said that or are you demanding we prove to you something you already know
we know that and he has been asked at least 3 dozen times by at least a half dozen posters to prove that his "solutions" will do anything (though I agree with stiffer sentences for violent criminals with firearms-that has worked as proven by Project exile and project safe neighborhoods)
you never gave any empirical support that your proposals will do anything. That was part of my request I asked you about your requests concerning clinton: you failed to respond. SO I have to assume your demand for us to prove something that has been patently and openly on the news for weeks is merely dilatory
Yeah I'm not a big fan of violence of any kind. The only way to stop gun violence is to take away all the guns. Clearly not gonna happen. However most violence is easily avoided for those who choose to do so. And at the end of the day human nature has to be figured in there some animals can't be tamed. So in my opinion it's just part of the human condition. It took millions of years to reach the top of the food chain. It will take millions more for civilization to evolve to social standards over self.
See, there in lies the rub, when you call the problem "Gun Violence" that misnomer causes trouble, why ? It suggests that Guns are The real problem, perhaps the main problem, that with fewer Guns and access to Guns, you would have much fewer so called Gun Deaths. This makes sense to most reasonable people that are not fans of Violence as a Logical Mr. Spock the Vulcan type of deduction. However, it is a faulty Logic, Sadly Violence is a part of Human behavior, and the way to reduce Violence has much to do with upbringing and education and People's views about other's, Guns not being so much a factor in these matters. Some people are like Beasts, Human life means little to them, so if they need money or have some pressing need, they see others as standing in their way or oppressing them and have little compunction in killing them. Enter the Liberal Lefty, that believes that by taking Guns out of the equation, People may get robbed even killed, however as long as Gun Violence is reduced, the true aim is served, this making lots O'sense to some reasonable People as reasonable Gun Regulations. So, NYC, and worse, Washington DC, decides that personal defense is not a truly legitimate reason for the majority of People to carry a concealed handgun for the express purpose of personal defense, sounds perfectly logical, Right ? Not when you analyze the logistics of personal defense. A punch can actually kill you. My Uncle died that way, the way it happened, was more of a freak accident and his killer was not charged, however, it underlines the reasoning behind personal defense. An armed person has a better chance of defending themselves from a stronger younger attacker, However, Liberals want to reduce "Gun Violence" and by making sure handguns and Concealed Carry permits are as difficult to obtain as Hen's teeth, most people are disarmed and likely to get killed in a Criminal assault. Hence My personal dislike for the term or moniker, "Gun Violence", it's very use suggests Gun Control as a solution when nothing could be further from the Truth.
I don't believe in all or nothing arguments. The goal is harm reduction not harm elimination. And there is a lot more we can do - - - Updated - - - It should be very easy for you to provide a reference but you won't. I find this very suspicious
Haven't a clue.Hereford is a SAS base, nothing to do with the Parachute Regiment. Try to get it right.
You have no skin in this game. Why bother? We don't F&^% with your country. Why do you have the need to screw with ours? I won't say a word when they change the name of the capitol to Londonistan.
When you reply to a quote your reply has to relate to the quote, not to use it to post crap. Take a deep breath and try again.
