NRA news conference

[tonymctones]

great point as always

we can't stop all murders or all drunk driving so why bother making any laws against them or doing anything to lessen the incidence of murder or drunk driving

I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.

You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?

[garebear]

I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.

You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?

[Straw Man]

I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.

You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?

I think that is what he is saying

basically there is no law that will stop ALL gun violence so therefore we should do nothing, well at least nothing in terms of laws to regulate gun ownership

[Straw Man]

I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.

You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?

there is no correlation between having a gun and shooting someone

and

not having a gun and not shooting someone

don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise

[tonymctones]

I think that is what he is saying

basically there is no law that will stop ALL gun violence so therefore we should do nothing, well at least nothing in terms of laws to regulate gun ownership

I dont see how you get that b/c the guns laws proposed would not stop gun violence we should do nothing.

Making it easier to identify mentally unstable individuals and get them help would help the problem at the root of the cause....

wouldnt you agree?

[blacken700]

reading most of these post,i can bet rush or hannity said the same shit today  

[tonymctones]

there is no correlation between having a gun and shooting someone

and

not having a gun and not shooting someone

don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise

ahhh, youre living up to your screen name.

You believe that all these deaths due to guns wouldnt have happend by other means if guns were not available?

if you truly believe that then why are you not arguing for a gun ban in afghanistan?

[tonymctones]

reading most of these post,i can bet rush or hannity said the same shit today 

did you get that from media matters?

[blacken700]

no but i know you get your shit from talk radio, its almost like it was recorded 

[tonymctones]

no but i know you get your shit from talk radio, its almost like it was recorded 

hahaha says the guy who literally parroted the white house while believing he was parroting a left wing news source.

LMFAO

[tu_holmes]

I think that is what he is saying

basically there is no law that will stop ALL gun violence so therefore we should do nothing, well at least nothing in terms of laws to regulate gun ownership

This is exactly what I believe... No... A constitutional right should not have ANY regulation that was not specifically stated in the constitution.

[LurkerNoMore]

Obama and his cult of cry babies are trying to ram new gun laws through as if a new law would have stopped lanza.   Since you support O-TWINK in this, please explain the law that would have stopped this that justifies a new law now? 

Where did you see me support Obama in this?  You made that up didn't you?  Is life so hard to cope with you have to make up the conversation you have with someone else?

[blacken700]

hahaha says the guy who literally parroted the white house while believing he was parroting a left wing news source.

LMFAO

 

tonymctones    i let talk radio do my thinking for me   the dumbing down of the repub party 'pat buchanan'

[Straw Man]

ahhh, youre living up to your screen name.

You believe that all these deaths due to guns wouldnt have happend by other means if guns were not available?

if you truly believe that then why are you not arguing for a gun ban in afghanistan?

first of all I'm not suggesting we get rid of all guns but you can't possibly be serious in your question

there is NO DOUBT that if all the same attacks happened but the person didn't have a gun but a knife, or ax or baseball bat that there would be MANY LESS FATALITIES

just pretend the nut job in Aurora, Arizona or Connecticut did not have a gun and tell me you think the same number of people would have died

Take your time and think about if for as long as you need before you respond

[Straw Man]

This is exactly what I believe... No... A constitutional right should not have ANY regulation that was not specifically stated in the constitution.

since no specific weapon was stated in The Constitution then you should either have the right to any weapon available on this earth ?

[tonymctones]

first of all I'm not suggesting we get rid of all guns but you can't possibly be serious in your question

there is NO DOUBT that if all the same attacks happened but the person didn't have a gun but a knife, or ax or baseball bat that there would be MANY LESS FATALITIES

just pretend the nut job in Aurora, Arizona or Connecticut did not have a gun and tell me you think the same number of people would have died

Take your time and think about if for as long as you need before you respond

goodness gracious, FIRST youre assuming that they wouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun even if there was a ban...Making it illegal to own guns doesnt stop a number of felons so why would it stop ppl who want to massacre alot of ppl?

SECOND, do you not think they wouldnt have altered their plans if they didnt have a gun?
You really think they would have conducted the same style of attacks at the same locations with a knife?

ORRRRR

do you think they would have thought about the way they could kill the most ppl and do that?

[Straw Man]

goodness gracious, FIRST youre assuming that they wouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun even if there was a ban...Making it illegal to own guns doesnt stop a number of felons so why would it stop ppl who want to massacre alot of ppl?

SECOND, do you not think they wouldnt have altered their plans if they didnt have a gun?
You really think they would have conducted the same style of attacks at the same locations with a knife?

ORRRRR

do you think they would have thought about the way they could kill the most ppl and do that?

I assumed NOTHING

I answered your SPECIFIC QUESTION which was  "You believe that all these deaths due to guns wouldnt have happend by other means if guns were not available?"

the answer of course is an obvious YES, those deaths  would not have happened or at least not in anywhere near the number

it's such an obvious YES I don't know why you even asked the question

If you don't like the answer then why did you ask that question?

[tu_holmes]

since no specific weapon was stated in The Constitution then you should either have the right to any weapon available on this earth ?

In my opinion, fuck yes... Mutually assured destruction is a very good defensive strategy.

[Straw Man]

In my opinion, fuck yes... Mutually assured destruction is a very good defensive strategy.

who are the parties that you're thing about who will mutually assure each others destruction?

citizen vs state or citizen vs. citizen?

I can't recall that concept being discussed in history books at the time the country was founded

Should this include things like rocket launchers, large caliber machine guns, drones, chemical and biological weapons

[tu_holmes]

who are the parties that you're thing about who will mutually assure each others destruction?

citizen vs state or citizen vs. citizen?

I can't recall that concept being discussed in history books at the time the country was founded

Should this include things like rocket launchers, large caliber machine guns, drones, chemical and biological weapons

Yes, yes, no, no.

[Straw Man]

Yes, yes, no, no.

why are you suddenly deciding to limit certain kinds of weapons

if the intent of the founders was to keep arms in the hand of the people in order to defend ones self and property but to also defend against the tyrannical government then given today's technology you would need all of those items I mentioned to fight against the government

[avxo]

Yes, yes, no, no.

Can you elaborate on why rocket launchers are OK but chemical or biological weapons aren't? How will you go duck huntin'?

[magikusar]

The premise that an armed fficer would stop an armed maniac is kinda hard for democrats to swallow.

The killers were not law abiding armed citizens, they were theives and maniacs.

Civilians being armed in order to resist maniacs and the maniacs in government is a good thing.


Whiny commies can go on and on but it was not a law abiding pair fo citizens who did this.

[Straw Man]

The premise that an armed fficer would stop an armed maniac is kinda hard for democrats to swallow.

The killers were not law abiding armed citizens, they were theives and maniacs.

Civilians being armed in order to resist maniacs and the maniacs in government is a good thing.


Whiny commies can go on and on but it was not a law abiding pair fo citizens who did this.

Ron needs to establish a retard board so you'll have somewhere to post where your fellow retards might actually take you seriously

[tu_holmes]

Can you elaborate on why rocket launchers are OK but chemical or biological weapons aren't? How will you go duck huntin'?

I don't consider chem or biologicals "armaments"... Some do for sure, but I do not.