Arkansas Democratic Parth Chairman Shot

#2
#2
mindless violence, much like that which has occurred at several GOP sites around the country.

Just watch, within a week, it'll be revealed that the shooter listened to Limbaugh and Hannity and had a copy of Jerome Corsi's book.
 
#4
#4
Tonight, Hannity will imply that the Clintons offed him because of some dastardly scheme. Laura Ingram will repeat it. By tomorrow, it will be on Drudge.
 
#6
#6
UT IE 95 said:
If he (the crazy person) didn't have a gun, things would be different. Gwatney would be heading home about now for dinner.
Click to expand...

Yea, ask that dead volleyball coach in China about how great things are as long as people don't have guns.
 
#7
#7
UT IE 95 said:
If he (the crazy person) didn't have a gun, things would be different. Gwatney would be heading home about now for dinner.
Click to expand...

So you are saying if guns were illegal there he would not have been killed? Ask the school kids in Chicago how that works!
 
#8
#8
KB5252 said:
So you are saying if guns were illegal there he would not have been killed? Ask the school kids in Chicago how that works!
Click to expand...

It would work the same way. No gun with the crazy in Chicago - nobody gets shot.
 
#9
#9
allvol123 said:
Yea, ask that dead volleyball coach in China about how great things are as long as people don't have guns.
Click to expand...

Now that was just crazy. People must have stood around shocked as this guy stabbed these people multiple times and did nothing. Kinda like that dude on the bus in Canada.

But I'd take my chances in protecting myself against an attacker with a knife vs. a gun anyday.
 
#11
#11
UT IE 95 said:
Now that was just crazy. People must have stood around shocked as this guy stabbed these people multiple times and did nothing. Kinda like that dude on the bus in Canada.

But I'd take my chances in protecting myself against an attacker with a knife vs. a gun anyday.
Click to expand...

The point is, things would not be different for this guy. If someone wants to kill you and you are not prepared to defend yourself, you are going to die. Your no guns comment just does not ring true.
 
#12
#12
UT IE 95 said:
But I'd take my chances in protecting myself against an attacker with a knife vs. a gun anyday.
Click to expand...
there this small problem with the bad guys not actually following the rules, especially those rules that outlaw guns.
 
#13
#13
allvol123 said:
The point is, things would not be different for this guy. If someone wants to kill you and you are not prepared to defend yourself, you are going to die. Your no guns comment just does not ring true.
Click to expand...

I was flipping the coin on the other poster that said" maybe thing would be different if he had a gun". I was pointing out that things would have been different if the shooter didn't have a gun.

Maybe the crazy guy would have still killed Gwatney - but he sure wouldn't have shot him.
 
#14
#14
UT IE 95 said:
I was flipping the coin on the other poster that said" maybe thing would be different if he had a gun". I was pointing out that things would have been different if the shooter didn't have a gun.

Maybe the crazy guy would have still killed Gwatney - but he sure wouldn't have shot him.
Click to expand...


Great point! :crazy:
And he couldn't have stabbed him with a knife if he didn't have a knife or gagged him with a spoon if he had no spoon.
 
#15
#15
UT IE 95 said:
I was flipping the coin on the other poster that said" maybe thing would be different if he had a gun". I was pointing out that things would have been different if the shooter didn't have a gun.

Maybe the crazy guy would have still killed Gwatney - but he sure wouldn't have shot him.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it.

Why does the method matter?
 
#20
#20
BigPapaVol said:
there this small problem with the bad guys not actually following the rules, especially those rules that outlaw guns.
Click to expand...


Theoretical question, City A and City B both have populations of 500,000, and both have armed police forces. City A has outlawed guns and has 100 crazy people running around with them. City B has not outlawed guns and has 10,000 crazy people running around with them.

Do you take you your chances carrying your own gun in City B, or do you take your chances and live in City A?
 
#21
#21
I think that gun control should be left to the state and local governments, just for the record.
 
#22
#22
theoretically, the gun crime rate in city B will be lower since it is proven that states and localities that have CCP have lower crime rates than cities with municipal gun bans.

so I'd take city B.
 
#23
#23
UT IE 95 said:
It would work the same way. No gun with the crazy in Chicago - nobody gets shot.
Click to expand...

So guns are the problem not people. If it weren't for the gun they wouldn't have been killed? That's making a huge assumption that these people wouldn't have chosen to kill in other ways.
 
#24
#24
emainvol said:
I think that gun control should be left to the state and local governments, just for the record.
Click to expand...

so you believe it should be removed from the Constitution and given to the states? That seems like a good idea...

In your other question you imply something that is just not true- less stringent guns laws produce more crazies with guns. In fact it seems the opposite is true if you ask the residents of DC. And either city in your little scenario would work for me because my guns would stay in my house regardless.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
Tonight, Hannity will imply that the Clintons offed him because of some dastardly scheme. Laura Ingram will repeat it. By tomorrow, it will be on Drudge.
Click to expand...

that's pathetic. that sounds like something a gator lawyer would say at a trial. maybe you should actually listen to the radio station before you start making assumptions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top