Proof that we need more gun control

[tgr4lfe 220]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Like.

[homersapien 12,172]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

1) Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". 2) One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. 3) Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. 4) The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

1) Perhaps that's why alexava - or anyone else for that matter - hasn't said that.

2) The fact one can kill people by other means is hardly a reason not to regulate a given class of weapons. The same logic could be used to deregulate machine guns or hand grenades (for example).

3) Yes, it would be nice if the people committing these crimes would change, but that's hardly an effective plan.

4) First, I seriously doubt the cities with (relatively) strong gun control laws didn't already have high crime rates when the laws were enacted. There are plenty of reasons why those laws have been "apparently" ineffective (which assumes the crime rates wouldn't have been even higher without the laws). The most obvious is the laws don't apply outside the city limits.

[AUDub 11,784]

Bigbens, I have a very simpleton question to as of you.

If people of all backgrounds did everything they could to live by the 10 Commandments would the world be a better place?

Yes. Unequivocally. Why do you ask such a loaded question?

[alexava 6,974]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

1) Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". 2) One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. 3) Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. 4) The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

1) Perhaps that's why alexava - or anyone else for that matter - hasn't said that.

2) The fact one can kill people by other means is hardly a reason not to regulate a given class of weapons. The same logic could be used to deregulate machine guns or hand grenades (for example).

3) Yes, it would be nice if the people committing these crimes would change, but that's hardly an effective plan.

4) First, I seriously doubt the cities with (relatively) strong gun control laws didn't already have high crime rates when the laws were enacted. There are plenty of reasons why those laws have been "apparently" ineffective (which assumes the crime rates wouldn't have been even higher without the laws). The most obvious is the laws don't apply outside the city limits.

thx homer. banning assault weapons will not stop normal crimes of passion, they will not stop robberies, gangs. they will not STOP mass school or theatre or grocery store or night club or church shootings. but they will make them LESS MASSIVE. like the idea of keeping nukes away from Iran, we are not trying to keep smaller arms away from potential terrorists just the ones that cause the most death. as well as away from the people who are most likely to use them to inflict harm on the innocent.

[alexava 6,974]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

1) Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". 2) One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. 3) Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. 4) The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

1) Perhaps that's why alexava - or anyone else for that matter - hasn't said that.

2) The fact one can kill people by other means is hardly a reason not to regulate a given class of weapons. The same logic could be used to deregulate machine guns or hand grenades (for example).

3) Yes, it would be nice if the people committing these crimes would change, but that's hardly an effective plan.

4) First, I seriously doubt the cities with (relatively) strong gun control laws didn't already have high crime rates when the laws were enacted. There are plenty of reasons why those laws have been "apparently" ineffective (which assumes the crime rates wouldn't have been even higher without the laws). The most obvious is the laws don't apply outside the city limits.

thx homer. banning assault weapons will not stop normal crimes of passion, they will not stop robberies, gangs. they will not STOP mass school or theatre or grocery store or night club or church shootings. but they will make them LESS MASSIVE. like the idea of keeping nukes away from Iran, we are not trying to keep smaller arms away from potential terrorists just the ones that cause the most death. as well as away from the people who are most likely to use them to inflict harm on the innocent.

this is another problem with logic. first of all the 15 round mags will have to go with the projected legislation. but you cannot do the same damage with lower capacity mags or speed loaded revolvers. that is a simple math problem. if these lower capacity guns were as effective they would be preferred because of cost. the military dont use revolvers or bolt actions they use machine guns that these AR 15s are replicated from.

[CCTAU 3,455]

this is another problem with logic. first of all the 15 round mags will have to go with the projected legislation. but you cannot do the same damage with lower capacity mags or speed loaded revolvers. that is a simple math problem. if these lower capacity guns were as effective they would be preferred because of cost. the military dont use revolvers or bolt actions they use machine guns that these AR 15s are replicated from.

Not even close. With noone there to stop the madman, he will just keep reloading. It's not hard to do, and do quickly. An unarmed victim is at teh mercy of a madmen regardless of a100 round magazine or ten 10 round magazines. To address this issue is charging the windmill. BANNING "ASSAULT WEAPONS" AND LIMITING MAG SIZE IS A USELESS GESTURE.

It only serves as a first step in going after more. The reason the old gun ban died is because it did nothing.

[alexava 6,974]

this is another problem with logic. first of all the 15 round mags will have to go with the projected legislation. but you cannot do the same damage with lower capacity mags or speed loaded revolvers. that is a simple math problem. if these lower capacity guns were as effective they would be preferred because of cost. the military dont use revolvers or bolt actions they use machine guns that these AR 15s are replicated from.

Not even close. With noone there to stop the madman, he will just keep reloading. It's not hard to do, and do quickly. An unarmed victim is at teh mercy of a madmen regardless of a100 round magazine or ten 10 round magazines. To address this issue is charging the windmill. BANNING "ASSAULT WEAPONS" AND LIMITING MAG SIZE IS A USELESS GESTURE.

It only serves as a first step in going after more. The reason the old gun ban died is because it did nothing.

you need to check the arizona shooting and see what stopped laughlin from killing more people. and here again i ask this question; if" he will just keep reloading. It's not hard to do, and do quickly" this is the case why the fight? it seems you feel there is no need for a high capacity mag anyway.

[tgr4lfe 220]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

1) Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". 2) One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. 3) Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. 4) The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

1) Perhaps that's why alexava - or anyone else for that matter - hasn't said that.

2) The fact one can kill people by other means is hardly a reason not to regulate a given class of weapons. The same logic could be used to deregulate machine guns or hand grenades (for example).

3) Yes, it would be nice if the people committing these crimes would change, but that's hardly an effective plan.

4) First, I seriously doubt the cities with (relatively) strong gun control laws didn't already have high crime rates when the laws were enacted. There are plenty of reasons why those laws have been "apparently" ineffective (which assumes the crime rates wouldn't have been even higher without the laws). The most obvious is the laws don't apply outside the city limits.

thx homer. banning assault weapons will not stop normal crimes of passion, they will not stop robberies, gangs. they will not STOP mass school or theatre or grocery store or night club or church shootings. but they will make them LESS MASSIVE. like the idea of keeping nukes away from Iran, we are not trying to keep smaller arms away from potential terrorists just the ones that cause the most death. as well as away from the people who are most likely to use them to inflict harm on the innocent.

Well, if banning them is NOT going to stop these things from happening then why do it? yep, b/c of an agenda...Your naive to think as much damage can't be done with handguns, or just blinded by liberal gunk. Comparing guns to a nuke, really? That is absurd.

As to your other post, the military chooses those weapons primarily b/c of the accuracy of distance. The use of rifles in a mass shooting is all about show on the part of the shooter. What will cause the biggest rift. All of these incidents lately could've have been carried out with 2 handguns, like a Glock 21 that comes with a 15 round magazine. Legislation is NOT going to keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do evil, whether gang banger on the corner or crazy kid who out to kill.

[alexava 6,974]

this is another problem with logic. first of all the 15 round mags will have to go with the projected legislation. but you cannot do the same damage with lower capacity mags or speed loaded revolvers. that is a simple math problem. if these lower capacity guns were as effective they would be preferred because of cost. the military dont use revolvers or bolt actions they use machine guns that these AR 15s are replicated from.

Not even close. With noone there to stop the madman, he will just keep reloading. It's not hard to do, and do quickly. An unarmed victim is at teh mercy of a madmen regardless of a100 round magazine or ten 10 round magazines. To address this issue is charging the windmill. BANNING "ASSAULT WEAPONS" AND LIMITING MAG SIZE IS A USELESS GESTURE.

It only serves as a first step in going after more. The reason the old gun ban died is because it did nothing.

we are not talking about ONE unarmed victim. we are talking about an elementary school, theatre, mall, grocery store. the shooter chose the high capacity mags for a reason and they seem to understand what they can do with them better than the people fighting against outlawing them. if you are reloading, you are not shooting. its that simple.

[alexava 6,974]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

1) Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". 2) One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. 3) Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. 4) The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

1) Perhaps that's why alexava - or anyone else for that matter - hasn't said that.

2) The fact one can kill people by other means is hardly a reason not to regulate a given class of weapons. The same logic could be used to deregulate machine guns or hand grenades (for example).

3) Yes, it would be nice if the people committing these crimes would change, but that's hardly an effective plan.

4) First, I seriously doubt the cities with (relatively) strong gun control laws didn't already have high crime rates when the laws were enacted. There are plenty of reasons why those laws have been "apparently" ineffective (which assumes the crime rates wouldn't have been even higher without the laws). The most obvious is the laws don't apply outside the city limits.

thx homer. banning assault weapons will not stop normal crimes of passion, they will not stop robberies, gangs. they will not STOP mass school or theatre or grocery store or night club or church shootings. but they will make them LESS MASSIVE. like the idea of keeping nukes away from Iran, we are not trying to keep smaller arms away from potential terrorists just the ones that cause the most death. as well as away from the people who are most likely to use them to inflict harm on the innocent.

Well, if banning them is NOT going to stop these things from happening then why do it? yep, b/c of an agenda...Your naive to think as much damage can't be done with handguns, or just blinded by liberal gunk. Comparing guns to a nuke, really? That is absurd.

As to your other post, the military chooses those weapons primarily b/c of the accuracy of distance. The use of rifles in a mass shooting is all about show on the part of the shooter. What will cause the biggest rift. All of these incidents lately could've have been carried out with 2 handguns, like a Glock 21 that comes with a 15 round magazine. Legislation is NOT going to keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do evil, whether gang banger on the corner or crazy kid who out to kill.

you do understand what less massive means dont you? the rest of your post just really proves my points. if the mass killing nut could get a nuke that is exacty what he would use. those who want to do evil want the highest capacity mags. they understand math, some dont.

[tgr4lfe 220]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

1) Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". 2) One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. 3) Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. 4) The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

1) Perhaps that's why alexava - or anyone else for that matter - hasn't said that.

2) The fact one can kill people by other means is hardly a reason not to regulate a given class of weapons. The same logic could be used to deregulate machine guns or hand grenades (for example).

3) Yes, it would be nice if the people committing these crimes would change, but that's hardly an effective plan.

4) First, I seriously doubt the cities with (relatively) strong gun control laws didn't already have high crime rates when the laws were enacted. There are plenty of reasons why those laws have been "apparently" ineffective (which assumes the crime rates wouldn't have been even higher without the laws). The most obvious is the laws don't apply outside the city limits.

thx homer. banning assault weapons will not stop normal crimes of passion, they will not stop robberies, gangs. they will not STOP mass school or theatre or grocery store or night club or church shootings. but they will make them LESS MASSIVE. like the idea of keeping nukes away from Iran, we are not trying to keep smaller arms away from potential terrorists just the ones that cause the most death. as well as away from the people who are most likely to use them to inflict harm on the innocent.

Well, if banning them is NOT going to stop these things from happening then why do it? yep, b/c of an agenda...Your naive to think as much damage can't be done with handguns, or just blinded by liberal gunk. Comparing guns to a nuke, really? That is absurd.

As to your other post, the military chooses those weapons primarily b/c of the accuracy of distance. The use of rifles in a mass shooting is all about show on the part of the shooter. What will cause the biggest rift. All of these incidents lately could've have been carried out with 2 handguns, like a Glock 21 that comes with a 15 round magazine. Legislation is NOT going to keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do evil, whether gang banger on the corner or crazy kid who out to kill.

you do understand what less massive means dont you? the rest of your post just really proves my points. if the mass killing nut could get a nuke that is exacty what he would use. those who want to do evil want the highest capacity mags. they understand math, some dont.

My point is that further restriction is NOT going to squelch these bad things from happening. Yea, ok, the next killer can't get an AR-15, he uses a standard semi auto handgun and gets 3, 10 round mags, you think he can't create just as massive a killing spree?? 30 rounds at close range in a public place, someone could easily shoot 20+, even if they don't have extensive firearms experience. I bet there will still be those that get an AR15, even illegally, and commit these violent acts. The problem is in the person using the weapon, not the weapon itself.

[homersapien 12,172]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.

1) Your crazy if you think stricter laws are going to "fix it". 2) One could do the same destruction with a standard Glock 21 with a 15 round magazine or even 3 6 shot revolvers with a speed loader. 3) Changes must come within society from the people who think this behavior is the way out or b/c you are being bullied or whatever the reason. 4) The cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst crime, I wonder why that is, oh.. I know, b/c the criminals still have guns and the average citizens won't/can't and thus can't protect themselves.

1) Perhaps that's why alexava - or anyone else for that matter - hasn't said that.

2) The fact one can kill people by other means is hardly a reason not to regulate a given class of weapons. The same logic could be used to deregulate machine guns or hand grenades (for example).

3) Yes, it would be nice if the people committing these crimes would change, but that's hardly an effective plan.

4) First, I seriously doubt the cities with (relatively) strong gun control laws didn't already have high crime rates when the laws were enacted. There are plenty of reasons why those laws have been "apparently" ineffective (which assumes the crime rates wouldn't have been even higher without the laws). The most obvious is the laws don't apply outside the city limits.

thx homer. banning assault weapons will not stop normal crimes of passion, they will not stop robberies, gangs. they will not STOP mass school or theatre or grocery store or night club or church shootings. but they will make them LESS MASSIVE. like the idea of keeping nukes away from Iran, we are not trying to keep smaller arms away from potential terrorists just the ones that cause the most death. as well as away from the people who are most likely to use them to inflict harm on the innocent.

Well, if banning them is NOT going to stop these things from happening then why do it? yep, b/c of an agenda...Your naive to think as much damage can't be done with handguns, or just blinded by liberal gunk. Comparing guns to a nuke, really? That is absurd.

As to your other post, the military chooses those weapons primarily b/c of the accuracy of distance. The use of rifles in a mass shooting is all about show on the part of the shooter. What will cause the biggest rift. All of these incidents lately could've have been carried out with 2 handguns, like a Glock 21 that comes with a 15 round magazine. Legislation is NOT going to keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do evil, whether gang banger on the corner or crazy kid who out to kill.

you do understand what less massive means dont you? the rest of your post just really proves my points. if the mass killing nut could get a nuke that is exacty what he would use. those who want to do evil want the highest capacity mags. they understand math, some dont.

My point is that further restriction is NOT going to squelch these bad things from happening. Yea, ok, the next killer can't get an AR-15, he uses a standard semi auto handgun and gets 3, 10 round mags, you think he can't create just as massive a killing spree?? 30 rounds at close range in a public place, someone could easily shoot 20+, even if they don't have extensive firearms experience. I bet there will still be those that get an AR15, even illegally, and commit these violent acts. The problem is in the person using the weapon, not the weapon itself.

There is no flaw in drawing a line somewhere in terms of making certain classes of weapons less prevalent in our society.

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

Military purposed rifles with detachable magazines are as good of a place as any. This argument of lethality - equivalence is a contrived argument.

As for the argument it's the person not the gun, that's true enough, but it's illogical to use that as the basis for making any type of weapon easily available. Ironically enough, the Connecticut shooter simply took his mother's AR15. God only knows why she had an AR-15, but she certainly didn't need one. No one does. I suspect that with an extensive registration process and more expense involved with acquiring it, she wouldn't have had it.

In that case, he would have at least been restricted to 9mm pistol rounds. Maybe he would have killed just as many kids, but that's no reason to make more lethally weapons just as available.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

They already are restricted. Here is the main reason we don't want anymore laws.....

We don't trust them!!! Plain and simple!

[homersapien 12,172]

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

They already are restricted. Here is the main reason we don't want anymore laws.....

We don't trust them!!! Plain and simple!

I know they are restricted. Don't act like a complete dolt.

The question is do you support those restrictions or would you rather see them lifted?

If you really find it that difficult to respond, just lie. At least you won't appear to be a fool.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

They already are restricted. Here is the main reason we don't want anymore laws.....

We don't trust them!!! Plain and simple!

I know they are restricted. Don't act like a complete dolt.

The question is do you support those restrictions or would you rather see them lifted?

If you really find it that difficult to respond, just lie. At least you won't appear to be a fool.

Don't get involved in poo-flinging, eh?

[autigeremt 7,131]

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

They already are restricted. Here is the main reason we don't want anymore laws.....

We don't trust them!!! Plain and simple!

I know they are restricted. Don't act like a complete dolt.

The question is do you support those restrictions or would you rather see them lifted?

If you really find it that difficult to respond, just lie. At least you won't appear to be a fool.

Appearing to be a fool and being a fool is two totally different things. I'm sure you can read between the lines....

MY personal view is that the law on current gun ownership needs to be "tweaked" or ammended but not changed. I don't have a problem with stronger background checks (including the addition to gun shows) that also allow for mental health as a determining factor to gun ownership (just as I don't have a problem with someone having to show picture ID to vote). Interesting how the irony begins, isn't it? The President will march out a group of children tomorrow to sport a new ban and yet he voted for infanticide.

We don't need a new set of laws, an "assault" weapons ban, or a law that requires a property owner (law abiding gun owner) to have to pay for and submit a background check before he/she sells their gun to another private citizen (unless it's free to the public through a clearinghouse).

My biggest problem is I don't trust government officials to do what they are sworn to do....uphold the law of the land.

[homersapien 12,172]

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

They already are restricted. Here is the main reason we don't want anymore laws.....

We don't trust them!!! Plain and simple!

I know they are restricted. Don't act like a complete dolt.

The question is do you support those restrictions or would you rather see them lifted?

If you really find it that difficult to respond, just lie. At least you won't appear to be a fool.

Don't get involved in poo-flinging, eh?

Yep.

If you look more closely, you will find that I was characterizing his responses, accurately I might add.

Actually I am still giving autigeremt the benefit of the doubt. I don't for a second think he's a fool. (For one, I assume he is at least an Auburn grad.)

I suspect he is "weaseling" because he understands exactly why I asked the questions he refuses to answer.. He doesn't want to admit the inconsistencies of his arguments. That awareness suggests he is no fool, or even a dolt.

I was simply pointing out his responses - if honest - are those of a fool (which he is most likely not). They make him sound like a dolt (even if he isn't).

Why does he persist in evasive, weaseling responses? I don't know. Let's ask him.

Autigeremt, why aren't you providing straight answers to simple questions? Why do you (choose to) weasel instead?

[homersapien 12,172]

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

They already are restricted. Here is the main reason we don't want anymore laws.....

We don't trust them!!! Plain and simple!

I know they are restricted. Don't act like a complete dolt.

The question is do you support those restrictions or would you rather see them lifted?

If you really find it that difficult to respond, just lie. At least you won't appear to be a fool.

Appearing to be a fool and being a fool is two totally different things. I'm sure you can read between the lines....

MY personal view is that the law on current gun ownership needs to be "tweaked" or ammended but not changed. I don't have a problem with stronger background checks (including the addition to gun shows) that also allow for mental health as a determining factor to gun ownership (just as I don't have a problem with someone having to show picture ID to vote). Interesting how the irony begins, isn't it? The President will march out a group of children tomorrow to sport a new ban and yet he voted for infanticide.

We don't need a new set of laws, an "assault" weapons ban, or a law that requires a property owner (law abiding gun owner) to have to pay for and submit a background check before he/she sells their gun to another private citizen (unless it's free to the public through a clearinghouse).

My biggest problem is I don't trust government officials to do what they are sworn to do....uphold the law of the land.

Well, that's a nice reasoned response.

Of course it does absolutely nothing to address the specific questions I answered, so it's still weaseling.

Actually, in many ways I prefer fools to weasels.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Would you restrict availability of any class of weapon? Do you think sub-machine machine guns, machine guns, or fully automatic versions of the AR15 should be restricted? How about RPG's?

They already are restricted. Here is the main reason we don't want anymore laws.....

We don't trust them!!! Plain and simple!

I know they are restricted. Don't act like a complete dolt.

The question is do you support those restrictions or would you rather see them lifted?

If you really find it that difficult to respond, just lie. At least you won't appear to be a fool.

Appearing to be a fool and being a fool is two totally different things. I'm sure you can read between the lines....

MY personal view is that the law on current gun ownership needs to be "tweaked" or ammended but not changed. I don't have a problem with stronger background checks (including the addition to gun shows) that also allow for mental health as a determining factor to gun ownership (just as I don't have a problem with someone having to show picture ID to vote). Interesting how the irony begins, isn't it? The President will march out a group of children tomorrow to sport a new ban and yet he voted for infanticide.

We don't need a new set of laws, an "assault" weapons ban, or a law that requires a property owner (law abiding gun owner) to have to pay for and submit a background check before he/she sells their gun to another private citizen (unless it's free to the public through a clearinghouse).

My biggest problem is I don't trust government officials to do what they are sworn to do....uphold the law of the land.

Well, that's a nice reasoned response.

Of course it does absolutely nothing to address the specific questions I answered, so it's still weaseling.

Actually, in many ways I prefer fools to weasels.

Excuse me, but how is this "weaseling"? Don't be foolish.