A Complete Waste of Space

Darkhorse wrote:The only thing in that nut shell are nuts that think banning any type of weapon will change a thing!

How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that banning something won't change anything ...... until you've banned it?

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Darkhorse wrote:The only thing in that nut shell are nuts that think banning any type of weapon will change a thing!

How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that banning something won't change anything ...... until you've banned it?

Really R_D...that's an incredibly stupid question.
The Volstead Act... Constitutional Amendment, banning/prohibiting Alcohol.

Do ya feel smarter now?

Pudfark wrote:

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Darkhorse wrote:The only thing in that nut shell are nuts that think banning any type of weapon will change a thing!

How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that banning something won't change anything ...... until you've banned it?

Really R_D...that's an incredibly stupid question.
The Volstead Act... Constitutional Amendment, banning/prohibiting Alcohol.

Do ya feel smarter now?

Really? The Volstead Act?
We're talking about assault weapons here.
Or do you want to bring up automobile horse power again?
Try to stay on topic for a change, will ya.

You asked.
I answered.

Tough, ain't it.

Pretty clear to everybody...ya didn't get any smarter.
Obama/Feinstein are proposing a law to ban "assault weapons".
I mentioned a Constitutional Amendment that banned.
I proved that didn't work as you requested.
You proved, you're still an idiot.

Got any more "good" questions?

Pudfark wrote:You asked.
I answered.

Tough, ain't it.

I got news for you, Pud.
ALL your posts are tough to read.

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Darkhorse wrote:The only thing in that nut shell are nuts that think banning any type of weapon will change a thing!

How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that banning something won't change anything ...... until you've banned it?

the argument around any of these proposed new regs is pretty basic, and well-framed by Obama a few weeks ago. If they keep one incident, or even one child's death from occurring, shouldn't we try? I'm tired of the 2nd amendment drivel. The language is clear that we have the right to bear arms. Still, nothing in there prevents the regulation of what type of arms are available. Nothing. Further, the main body of the Constitution empowers the Congress and President to act in the interests of the 'General Welfare' of the nation. This stuff isn't rocket surgery, folks. No one is taking anyone's guns away. No one is saying you can't own a gun(as long as you are reasonably, even minimally, responsible). No one is doing anything other than trying to exercise common sense in the interest of the General Welfare of the nation. Sad to see so many focused on their selfish interests, as that is at the core of what has fucked the society up. You see, it's tough to build or maintain a SOCIETY, when all folks care about is THEMSELVES.

callmeslick wrote:You see, it's tough to build or maintain a SOCIETY, when all folks care about is THEMSELVES.

They don't understand the difference between want and need.
And they probably never will.

callmeslick wrote:the argument around any of these proposed new regs is pretty basic, and well-framed by Obama a few weeks ago. If they keep one incident, or even one child's death from occurring, shouldn't we try? I'm tired of the 2nd amendment drivel. The language is clear that we have the right to bear arms. Still, nothing in there prevents the regulation of what type of arms are available. Nothing. Further, the main body of the Constitution empowers the Congress and President to act in the interests of the 'General Welfare' of the nation. This stuff isn't rocket surgery, folks. No one is taking anyone's guns away. No one is saying you can't own a gun(as long as you are reasonably, even minimally, responsible). No one is doing anything other than trying to exercise common sense in the interest of the General Welfare of the nation. Sad to see so many focused on their selfish interests, as that is at the core of what has fucked the society up. You see, it's tough to build or maintain a SOCIETY, when all folks care about is THEMSELVES.

It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment to change that...good luck with it.

What would you know about "building" or "maintaining" anything other than your narcissistic beliefs in yourself or Obama. Speaking of "THEMSELVES", of which, I would be one of "them". I take care of me and mine. There is no moral or legal requirement for me to take care of you and yours. However, should I voluntarily choose to do something for ya? It's called "CHARITY".

Your inability to "care" for yourself and false characterization of others, who don't kiss yer ass about it, is a tell, all within itself.

What you and the other dummies don't get?
It's pretty damned stupid to confront legally armed citizens,
with a pen in hand and a false explanation on yer lips, in an
attempt to deprive them of their property. Particularly, in Texas.

It's been fun reading what you've written.
Carry on.