(December 3, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: There's no such thing as a potential crime. A firearm won't change that. From where I'm sitting, a person with a firearm and a criminal are the same thing, even if only in intent. Someone who subscribes to shit like "thou shalt not kill" ought to appreciate that.

Even you do not believe that.

(December 3, 2015 at 11:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: There's no such thing as a potential crime. A firearm won't change that. From where I'm sitting, a person with a firearm and a criminal are the same thing, even if only in intent. Someone who subscribes to shit like "thou shalt not kill" ought to appreciate that.

Even you do not believe that.

The moron that can't really think now tries to think for others.

Thank you for telling me what I don't believe. Twat.

Quote:There are already a fuck ton of gun control laws on the books. Why can't do they need more laws when they don't enforce current ones worth a shit?

I don't think you are that naive so I believe you are being dishonest.  Local laws are easily circumvented which is why we need federal laws which apply EVERYWHERE.

(December 4, 2015 at 12:33 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:There are already a fuck ton of gun control laws on the books. Why can't do they need more laws when they don't enforce current ones worth a shit?

I don't think you are that naive so I believe you are being dishonest.  Local laws are easily circumvented which is why we need federal laws which apply EVERYWHERE.

The primary federal law says that you can possess guns.  Why do you want to give up your freedoms?

(December 3, 2015 at 10:01 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What "strawmanning " was that.  Do you deny what you wrote?

No. I deny what you attributed to me.

I guess I'm not going to get an apology.

Min, it's really shitty of you not to even go back to make sure you weren't in the wrong. You attributed to me a bunch of shit that didn't apply, and I'm really disappointed that you're being as intellectually dishonest as to not even acknowledge that you misconstrued what I was saying. I've been back four times, and I can't for a moment see where you were coming from.

(December 4, 2015 at 2:31 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 12:33 am)Minimalist Wrote: I don't think you are that naive so I believe you are being dishonest.  Local laws are easily circumvented which is why we need federal laws which apply EVERYWHERE.

The primary federal law says that you can possess guns.  Why do you want to give up your freedoms?

I'd like to possess a gun, but then Damien Karras would simply fuck it all up...

Boru

(December 4, 2015 at 12:33 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:There are already a fuck ton of gun control laws on the books. Why can't do they need more laws when they don't enforce current ones worth a shit?

I don't think you are that naive so I believe you are being dishonest.  Local laws are easily circumvented which is why we need federal laws which apply EVERYWHERE.

What federal laws do you propose that are not currently in place?

(December 4, 2015 at 7:59 am)KUSA Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 12:33 am)Minimalist Wrote: I don't think you are that naive so I believe you are being dishonest.  Local laws are easily circumvented which is why we need federal laws which apply EVERYWHERE.

What federal laws do you propose that are not currently in place?

Bans on ALL spray weapons and bans on big clips. 7 day waiting period for all other guns. Mandatory psychological evaluation. Bans on online gun sales. Close gunshow loophole. Liability laws for injuries or death resulting from use of the gun.  Mandatory stress training, meaning KNOWING how to use a gun under stress. Licence review like drivers licence. Mandatory viewing of ME exams of those who are victims of gun death. Limits on amounts of guns makeres can make per year.

Now again, nothing in those words says "take away all guns".