Gun control debate (merged)

#8,202
#8,202
hog88 said:
They didn’t require by threat of imprisonment for private citizens to destroy their property or surrender it so try again.
Click to expand...
Sure they do. Buy a house and then try to resell it with the knowledge it contains asbestos.
 
#8,203
#8,203
evillawyer said:
So do any of you AR-15 leg humpers know what’s going on at the NRA? You know it must be bad if Ollie North of all people is resigning in protest for alleged financial improprieties.
Click to expand...
The swampiness of the NRA makes congress look like a mountain spring. Yet many of these gun-nuts willingly give them their money. Tax dollars are better spent.
 
#8,204
#8,204
luthervol said:
In the obvious ways.
Certain types of building materials are determined to have a level of danger to the public that outweighs the usefulness.
Not that anyone would ever advocate banning all building materials.
Click to expand...
There are no obvious ways that a firearm relates to asbestos. The reasons you gave don't apply to an inanimate object that in and of itself is not dangerous. Asbestos in no form is safe.
 
#8,205
#8,205
luthervol said:
And gun manufactures will not stop attempting to design more efficient and deadly weapons that push the line of legality.
If you deny that, you are the troll of all trolls. The trolliest of all.
Click to expand...
I deny that completely and challenge you to show your evidence. My evidence to my statement is that your comrades have made statements about complete bans and much of your reasoning leads to a complete ban. Step up and tell me about those deadlier weapons again?
 
#8,208
#8,208
luthervol said:
The swampiness of the NRA makes congress look like a mountain spring. Yet many of these gun-nuts willingly give them their money. Tax dollars are better spent.
Click to expand...
You mean tax dollars spent on this? Right up your . . . . alley.

Research on duck reproductive organs

12-Facts-About-Animals-That-You-Have-All-Wrong_416021665.jpg
EvgenySHCH/Shutterstock

In 2005, biologists at Yale University were awarded a research grant to study the reproductive anatomy of the duck. Specifically, the researchers studied the unique corkscrew-like shape of the male duck’s genitalia
Cost to taxpayers: $384,989
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,209
#8,209
82_VOL_83 said:
There are no obvious ways that a firearm relates to asbestos. The reasons you gave don't apply to an inanimate object that in and of itself is not dangerous. Asbestos in no form is safe.
Click to expand...
It's that whole coming into contact with humans thing.
 
#8,211
#8,211
37L1 said:
You mean tax dollars spent on this? Right up your . . . . alley.

Research on duck reproductive organs

12-Facts-About-Animals-That-You-Have-All-Wrong_416021665.jpg
EvgenySHCH/Shutterstock

In 2005, biologists at Yale University were awarded a research grant to study the reproductive anatomy of the duck. Specifically, the researchers studied the unique corkscrew-like shape of the male duck’s genitalia
Cost to taxpayers: $384,989
Click to expand...
Exactly. Knowledge of the cork-screw duck penis is far more beneficial to society than paying LaPierre 5.1 million a year.
 
#8,212
#8,212
37L1 said:
You mean tax dollars spent on this? Right up your . . . . alley.

Research on duck reproductive organs

12-Facts-About-Animals-That-You-Have-All-Wrong_416021665.jpg
EvgenySHCH/Shutterstock

In 2005, biologists at Yale University were awarded a research grant to study the reproductive anatomy of the duck. Specifically, the researchers studied the unique corkscrew-like shape of the male duck’s genitalia
Cost to taxpayers: $384,989
Click to expand...
I guess this will pave the way for duck porn in the future

TV_Girl_pukes.gif
 
#8,213
#8,213
luthervol said:
I must have missed the word ALL
ALL is the critical word here. No one is attempting to take ALL, nor to you have the constitutional right to ALL.
Click to expand...

You already know how it’s worded , that’s been the thorn in the liberal side since they decided to try for more gun control . Thank god the founding fathers were smart enough to word it the way they did . It’s never on the 2a supporters shoulders to try and explain the wording , it’s already there . It’s always on the side that wants more gun control to try and change what the words mean to get what they want .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and InVOLuntary
#8,216
#8,216
0nelilreb said:
You already know how it’s worded , that’s been the thorn in the liberal side since they decided to try for more gun control . Thank god the founding fathers were smart enough to word it the way they did . It’s never on the 2a supporters shoulders to try and explain the wording , it’s already there . It’s always on the side that wants more gun control to try and change what the words mean to get what they want .
Click to expand...
In order to have more, you must already have some. I guess that means it's already been decided that the words allow some gun control.
 
#8,217
#8,217
Pepe_Silvia said:
At this point y'all should know better than to try to have a reasoned debate about guns with luther.
Click to expand...
That's the truth. I'm currently stuck in this thread and the religious thread, the two I try to avoid. However, the similarities are fascinating.
 
#8,220
#8,220
luthervol said:
In order to have more, you must already have some. I guess that means it's already been decided that the words allow some gun control.
Click to expand...

This is where your problems lie with more . The left and it’s propaganda machines tries to make 2a supporters believe that “ we don’t want to take your guns “ if you didn’t then you would have stopped with the gun control you were able to get away with already . If AR-15s were bad then we wouldn’t be able to own one , to resell it or to give it to others . To use your example of asbestos , the government did studies to find that it is dangerous to the public and banned it . Why then haven’t they banned pistols ?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top