Sublime Opinions of the Masses (give or take a few)
https://acompletewasteofspace.com/
they clearly have not arrived yet......Reservoir_Dog wrote:So, how's your therapy going? Are your meds covered by a good health plan?Pudfark wrote:On the "crazies"....if they were dealt with honestly and medically...
In yer case Slick...nuthin is free about care...it's just careless.callmeslick wrote:they clearly have not arrived yet......Reservoir_Dog wrote:So, how's your therapy going? Are your meds covered by a good health plan?Pudfark wrote:On the "crazies"....if they were dealt with honestly and medically...
callmeslick wrote:they clearly have not arrived yet......Reservoir_Dog wrote:So, how's your therapy going? Are your meds covered by a good health plan?Pudfark wrote:On the "crazies"....if they were dealt with honestly and medically...
Well go ahead Slick....pretty apparent where the "blabbering" is coming from....callmeslick wrote:blabber on, fool!
A 2004 Justice Department study on the effectiveness of a federal ban on assault weapons from 1994 to 2003 concluded that the law didn’t have much impact. (Even on school shootings: the Columbine massacre took place during 1999, when the law was in effect.)Reservoir_Dog wrote:How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that banning something won't change anything ...... until you've banned it?Darkhorse wrote:The only thing in that nut shell are nuts that think banning any type of weapon will change a thing!
I am aware of the report, but it DID state that there was some positive effect(not a whole lot) and as I keep saying, the goal of current proposals is to have a small effect.Buzz wrote:Slick has ignored this. Even though i've said over and over the ban won't change anything.
are you suggesting that is the effect of cancelling the ban? If so, perhaps you are right.....hence the need to reinstate it. This shit didn't happen until after the ban had been lifted, huh?Buzz wrote:Actually, it did have an effect. There's a shit load more assault guns on the streets now.