Anonymous wrote:Was this the thread with the chart that showed DC had the highest gun murder rate (despite strict gun laws)? I thought it was an excellent way of showing that gun laws do not translate to fewer murders (which is understandably something liberals wouldn't want out there.)

Was this the thread? I can't find it.

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing makes the AR-15 “special” other than it looks different than regular old rifle. There are guns with the exact specs as the AR-15 that just are not black and “Rambo” looking, but people don’t realize that.

And that it seems to be the favored weapon of mass shooters. Maybe they're just going for the looks, I don't know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

No, he was yet another violent liberal.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. An armed populace serves no purpose if it's unwilling or unable to be violent. So you must think he's a hero.

The Swiss must be a lot more violent than us, right? Heck they have honest-to-goodness machine guns in their homes! The horror!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

No, he was yet another violent liberal.

Remorseless liar.

He was a violent liberal. Very. Are you in denial over this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

No, he was yet another violent liberal.

Remorseless liar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

No, he was yet another violent liberal.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. An armed populace serves no purpose if it's unwilling or unable to be violent. So you must think he's a hero.

The Swiss must be a lot more violent than us, right? Heck they have honest-to-goodness machine guns in their homes! The horror!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

No, he was yet another violent liberal.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. An armed populace serves no purpose if it's unwilling or unable to be violent. So you must think he's a hero.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

No, he was yet another violent liberal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

No, he was yet another violent liberal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing makes the AR-15 “special” other than it looks different than regular old rifle. There are guns with the exact specs as the AR-15 that just are not black and “Rambo” looking, but people don’t realize that.

And that it seems to be the favored weapon of mass shooters. Maybe they're just going for the looks, I don't know.

It's the most popular rifle in America, and they're available everywhere. I bet the cars involved in the most DUIs are also the most popular cars. banning those cars won't stop DUIs - people will just use different cars.

Such bs. The gun is not about looks. And yes once in a while you will see an AK-47, a mini-14, or an MCX. That's not the point. There is no good term for these guns, so posters are using shorthand. Everyone gets in a huff if you say "assault rifle". Now we can't say AR-15 because somebody *ahem* wants to point out there are other similar weapons. So in order to have a conversation without hairspllitting we'll have to define some godawful term such as SCHV detachable magazine semiautomatic rifle, which inevitably someone will pick apart.

"Assault rifles" are real things, and the AR-15 isn't one (although the M-16 is). You probably meant "assault weapon", which is a made-up term meant to be confused with "assault rifles" and machine guns, etc. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, and federally banned in 1986. Words have meanings. If you want to ban assault weapons, you might as well pack up and go home because your job is done.

So easily triggered! This is exactly what I mean by someone getting in a huff about words.

Currently there are a bunch of posters talking about AR-15s. And you and I and half the planet knows there are similar weapons that would be included in the language of eventual legislation. But for the purpose of online discussion, it's OK to talk about the AR-15 as an example of the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?

So you must think the Alexandria baseball field shooter was some kind of hero, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing makes the AR-15 “special” other than it looks different than regular old rifle. There are guns with the exact specs as the AR-15 that just are not black and “Rambo” looking, but people don’t realize that.

And that it seems to be the favored weapon of mass shooters. Maybe they're just going for the looks, I don't know.

It's the most popular rifle in America, and they're available everywhere. I bet the cars involved in the most DUIs are also the most popular cars. banning those cars won't stop DUIs - people will just use different cars.

Such bs. The gun is not about looks. And yes once in a while you will see an AK-47, a mini-14, or an MCX. That's not the point. There is no good term for these guns, so posters are using shorthand. Everyone gets in a huff if you say "assault rifle". Now we can't say AR-15 because somebody *ahem* wants to point out there are other similar weapons. So in order to have a conversation without hairspllitting we'll have to define some godawful term such as SCHV detachable magazine semiautomatic rifle, which inevitably someone will pick apart.

"Assault rifles" are real things, and the AR-15 isn't one (although the M-16 is). You probably meant "assault weapon", which is a made-up term meant to be confused with "assault rifles" and machine guns, etc. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, and federally banned in 1986. Words have meanings. If you want to ban assault weapons, you might as well pack up and go home because your job is done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back.

Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become.

Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists.

Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't!

Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace?