(May 4, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 606 is an acceptable body count to you? 1 1/2 a day just because some asshole with a gun decides to stop being a "responsible" gun owner? Seriously?

In Britain in 2010 there were 58 murders.

Britain is the size of Wyoming, with a population of 63 million.

The US has 313 million residents, almost 5 times as many, and a host of social problems Britain doesn't seem to have.

I'm not sure how the comparison says anything.

Which "social problems" would these be? Aside from having nearly as many guns as people?

Should we take the stats that render population size irrelevant and use gun deaths per 100,000 instead?

The most obvious social problem we have is too many assholes walking around with guns.

Meanwhile...the gun nuts cover themselves with...... shit, again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/12/sa...r-existed/

Quote:A vinyl peace sign installed at a playground in Mystic, Connecticut, dedicated to a victim of the Sandy Hook shooting was stolen last week by a man claiming that the Newtown massacre never happened.

After stealing the 50-pound sign from the Grace McDonnell playground, the man called McDonnell’s mother saying he did it because he believes the shooting at the school was a hoax, according to CBS2.

Nothing surprises me anymore. I know where I live. Crazy bastards.

(May 14, 2014 at 12:58 am)Minimalist Wrote: The most obvious social problem we have is too many assholes walking around with guns.

Meanwhile...the gun nuts cover themselves with...... shit, again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/12/sa...r-existed/

Quote:A vinyl peace sign installed at a playground in Mystic, Connecticut, dedicated to a victim of the Sandy Hook shooting was stolen last week by a man claiming that the Newtown massacre never happened.

After stealing the 50-pound sign from the Grace McDonnell playground, the man called McDonnell’s mother saying he did it because he believes the shooting at the school was a hoax, according to CBS2.

Seriously, Min? This has nothing to do with The Second Amendment or gun owners.

Sandy Hook was a second amendment issue.

(May 14, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Sandy Hook was a second amendment issue.

This guy's wacky conspiracy theory isn't.

(May 14, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Chas Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Sandy Hook was a second amendment issue.

This guy's wacky conspiracy theory isn't.

From the short article (emphasis mine):

Quote:Sandy Hook ‘truthers’ believe that the Newtown shooting never occurred or was part of a ‘false flag’ operation designed to open the door to the confiscation of all guns by the government.

You claiming that this nut's conspiracy isn't about the second amendment is like saying those that kill in the name of their god aren't really doing it because of their religion.

(May 14, 2014 at 5:23 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Chas Wrote: This guy's wacky conspiracy theory isn't.

From the short article (emphasis mine):

Quote:Sandy Hook ‘truthers’ believe that the Newtown shooting never occurred or was part of a ‘false flag’ operation designed to open the door to the confiscation of all guns by the government.

You claiming that this nut's conspiracy isn't about the second amendment is like saying those that kill in the name of their god aren't really doing it because of their religion.

OK, I'll buy that. I stand corrected.

(May 6, 2014 at 12:55 pm)KUSA Wrote: Your president obviously agrees with this statement. Look at all the guns protecting him.

Are you a moron? When you're the most powerful individual in the world with a massive list of enemies and their cohorts who would kill you without hesitation given the chance, then you can get back to me with NEEDING advanced killing machines to protect you at all times.

(May 6, 2014 at 7:40 pm)KUSA Wrote: What strawman? It seems like every liberal celebrity that hates guns is surrounded by them by choice. You say the president has no choice in this well what if he did? Do you think he would say no to having guns protecting him? Fuck no he wouldn't. He would be a fool not to want them.

The 1st strawman was the claim that I want to take your guns from you, which I never said. I said we need sensible gun regulation laws.
Second straw man was that their is an obvious categorical difference between the most powerful man on earth needing an extensive security detail and a regular Joe just picking up an AR-15 because he thinks he needs to not just protect himself, but have overwhelming force to eviscerate the body of any person he thinks might pose a threat to him. And all this, without it being federally required (some local laws do) that you have a background check and periodic psych-evaluations so we know you're not a criminal and so we know if you're mentally stable enough to reasonably be in possession of something that is designed to kill other living things. Federally, we require much more just to legally own and drive a car than we do for owning guns, which is just insane.

(May 14, 2014 at 11:48 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Are you a moron? When you're the most powerful individual in the world with a massive list of enemies and their cohorts who would kill you without hesitation given the chance, then you can get back to me with NEEDING advanced killing machines to protect you at all times.

Translation: Only aristocratic people deserve to use guns for protection. The commoners aren't important enough to have this consideration.