Hearts and prayers, hearts and prayers, hearts and prayers,..........move on.

There is. Gun control supporters ignore other methods of violence and focus on guns and those they can safely attack.

 

How about that! "Other methods of violence" in a thread about gun violence. I know my job is complete when the other poster bows out of the topic being discussed.

Thanks for playing...

 

Yes, please explain why someone who would risk the penalties for committing murder would not risk the penalties of buying a banned AR? I did not ask about FFL dealers selling them.

 

Cuomo killed more people in six months with COVID than all of the "domestic terrorist" events in the last decade, lol.

 

Ah, I see you are straying from protecting human life again. I don't understand why people find other methods of murder more palatable. The position of gun control is not one of concern for human life.

 

How put upon you must feel. Laws allowing people to parade around in combat gear with a semi-automatic weapon after a nominal background check not permissive enough for you? Time to repeal restrictions on hand grenades?

 

Very creative dodge, but you cannot speak for how people feel. It is another example of how images are used to feed irrational fear. I realize you don't know much about firearms or combat gear.

Hand grenades are simple mechanisms that can be made out of anything. Pipe bombs are one example. The Boston marathon bomber used a pressure cooker.

 

Irrational fear is the last emotion I want to evoke by showing a pic of armed men dressed for war inside the capital building in MI. There certainly isn't anything irrational about the fear MI legislators felt as those thugs tried to intimidate them.
I want to evoke outrage that such a thing is allowed in America.

"It’s a scary feeling trying to come into work — to do the work of the people — while protesters are trying to storm the building and having men with semi-automatic weapons hovering over you in the gallery," Santana told The Detroit News on Saturday.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...have-lawmakers-questioning-policy/3071928001/

 

So...anyone that owns a gun and protests is a white supremacist to you?

Anyways... here's a hint...if you want to address the reason for mass shootings, then you need to address the core issues. Blaming an inanimate object is not going to resolve jack diddly. The majority of mass shootings that the media likes to put attention on are caused by people that have legally bought a gun. Those gun laws designed to "stop killings" didn't do squat.

 

Awww...should we get em a tissue?

 

Dressed for war? My daughters have purses with the same pattern! How many people did these men shoot?

 

The vast majority of guns in the US are not used to shoot a single person. The ones that are make up less than 1% of deaths in America.

 

For the same reason somebody who commits suicide doesn't fear going to jail for murdering himself. Even after I told you it was a dumb question, you still don't understand it's a dumb question?

Nor did I

 

Who's Cuomo?

 

The governor of NY.

 

So a dumb question got you to admit there is zero value in the ban you support. You are correct. A ban has zero effect on criminals possessing AR style rifles. Another example of how gun control is not from a position of concern for human life. Since you are unfamiliar with what an AR really is, it is a simple platform with few moving parts. Any amateur machinist can make one and they can even be 3D printed. Other than appearance, it is no different than a ranch rifle.

 

And the large majority of automobile airbags in the US will never deploy. In both cases, there is no way of knowing which is which.

 

Never heard of her....

 

No. It only demonstrated that a dumb question deserves a dumb answer.

 

Yes it is.

 

Huh?

You're obviously just a waste of time to talk to.

 

Notice you can't make a very good case without cutting off half of what was said.

 

What a lame attempt to backtrack a statement you made! I addressed your point without taking it out of context. If you prove I took it out of context, I will apologize and correct myself. If not, then respond to my rebuttal.

If this argument is yours, you will be able to respond. If you were simply echoing something you read or heard it on the wingnut media (which I suspect is the case) then you won't.

 

My original post:

The part of my post you quoted:

Notice the part that is missing? Its all part of the same paragraph, which means it is a part of the context.

I'll wait for your apology. But I won't hold my breath.

 

That exact kind of mentality used as justification for allowing armed gangs to roam the streets, many of which have white supremacist roots, is a grotesque perversion of the 2nd A.