5. That long list is 3. One Senator, and two Congressmen. The rest were journalists and lobbyists, or state officials, ...
All professed Democrats loyal to the cause and who have close influence over the laws created...
You asked where Democrats said they wanted to take the guns away and claimed no one did. False, I showed you. You can no longer honestly say that the intent doesn't exist within your preferred party.
...which the Supreme Court last week and last year struck down the only 2 real local attempts at some kind of gun control.
Yes, laws were stricken that were put in place by >>>Democrats<<<.
"Only 2" ..
Have you had your head buried in the sand the last 30 years? Lower courts have also struck down many many anti-gun laws elsewhere in the country that were put in place by and large by...
Democrats.
California now has the distinction of the most Draconian and nonsensical laws in the nation. And, it got this way under Democratic Party control. To perpetuate a lie that democrats are NOT an anti-gun party is simply preposterous. If the economy was better, we'd have a spate of new anti-gun laws today. But, the people are already in an unhappy mood.
I then generalized by saying that it might be a good idea to keep guns away from people like that (morons).
Please elaborate on how you think that should be done without violating civil rights.
7. I only think that we should seek to restrict/deny morons from owning guns.
Please elaborate on how you think that should be done without violating civil rights.
8. Who cares what you think? Even people that were on your side are stepping back because you've jumped off the edge.
It must give you great comfort to imagine it that way, and believe you are taking the "high road". (Still on the soapbox, I see.)
I think if anyone is stepping back, it's because none of this bickering matters. You are set in your ways, and without a logical argument, you aren't changing mine.
Then you take a few comments made by individuals and turned those comments into the Democratic platform. Which Merriam Webster defines as:
2 : a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons stands; especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted by a political party or a candidate
Find a anti gun platform on any real Democratic Party website, and I'll shut up. Not a lobbyist website, but a true party site.
It used to be there. But, after the clinton administration and a democratic controlled congress rammed the "Assault Weapons ban" down the throats of America (among other anti-gun legislation), and then lost big time in the next elections, the Democratic Candidates removed the gun issue from their platforms and refused to debate it openly because they knew it was a sure way to lose elections. It worked, and the the Dems regained control. (Perhaps more than 50% of the voters are morons that would hand a loaded gun to a child.)
Anyway, now you have to look at a candidate's past voting records to see how they treat an issue or discover their true attitudes about an issue, because the modern politician has the ability to look right into the camera lens and lie with conviction (regardless of party affiliation). Personally, I tend to mistrust those who say one thing but do another, or proceed in a clandestine manner.
9. ?? I never called anyone a moron based solely on the basis of gun ownership.
The implication was most certainly there. Whether you wish to admit it or not.
10. Really? You saw the same 40 seconds we all did, and you didn't think "What a moron"? He shot the gun into the air(stupid) and then handed it to what looks like a 6 year old, who then shot HIM (even stoopider).
I do heartily agree that the behavior in the video was abhorrent. But, the term moron means there was infererior-intelligence in the party in question. Being Homo-Sapien, he has the same basic intelligence as the rest of us (assumed equality). I do believe his knowledge base is at a whole different level, possibly closer to what the child has in the arena of gun handling.
Unless you have the god-like powers you believe you have, it is totally impossible for you to know his intelligence level simply by watching the video. You are reasonably shocked by the video, understandable. To pass judgment on his intelligence is beyond reason. Is that also what it means to be a democrat, the ability to pass judgment before all the relevant facts are observed?
11. I have to quote here.
The purpose of a gun is to enforce the wielder's will upon someone or something else.
So, in your world, we're having this discussion in person, and you'll whip out your gun to enforce your will upon me? Nice.
Nice dreamy projection on your part, implying that I'm the evil villain. (Perhaps you really ARE pious.) But, to answer your nonsense...
In a verbal argument, no. Only when it is apparent that you will do me bodily harm or will do something other than continued nasty comments.
If your will is to do me bodily harm, yes I'll whip out my gun to change your will. Don't worry, you can still hurl your obscenities at me from afar.
12. Absolutely none of those "facts" disprove your first statement that "60 million U.S. gun owners didn't kill someone today".
Agreed.
So if we take Micks number that he found, it should be "Of the 60 million U.S. gun owners, 59,918 didn't kill someone today".
Why would we take Mick's numbers? Because he is "on your side", perhaps?
Anyway, please explain your math. Looks like continued nonsense. (or, at the very least, the loss of three decimal places, another democratic trait usually applied to money management.
)
But you do have too much hate in your life.
Again with the god like powers. (Off topic, as well.) Is it now fair for me to proclaim to everyone just what your life is like? I can do fiction as well as fact when appropriate. I have time.
But, if I do (by your standards) have too much hate in my life, it is fully balanced with all the love.
I wonder Stan, when was the last time you rode your bike?
