Yeah, whatever. It's taking a human life no matter how you want to twist it. I'm pro-choice myself, but I find the mental gymnastics so many people perform to justify it to themselves to be nauseating.Adams_BJ wrote:
Foetus' aren't people. The law says so.
Well, at least the death sentence is levied against people who have done something to deserve it. Most of the time anyway.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah and then they say I'm a hypocrite because I am pro-life but I am all for the death sentence. It works both ways.
You guys twist everything I say. I never said rape is good, I NEVER said that. You guys are implying I said that. Rape sucks, it's one of the worst things that can happen to a person. There's no denying that. That is no excuse for killing a baby growing in a mother's womb.
so you think killing should be legal?Jay wrote:
Yeah, whatever. It's taking a human life no matter how you want to twist it. I'm pro-choice myself, but I find the mental gymnastics so many people perform to justify it to themselves to be nauseating.Adams_BJ wrote:
Foetus' aren't people. The law says so.
Last edited by Mutantbear (2013-01-28 16:21:09)
Even in the "Most of the time" cases it's because they're presumed guilty although they are innocent which is just damn unlucky.Jay wrote:
Well, at least the death sentence is levied against people who have done something to deserve it. Most of the time anyway.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yeah and then they say I'm a hypocrite because I am pro-life but I am all for the death sentence. It works both ways.
You guys twist everything I say. I never said rape is good, I NEVER said that. You guys are implying I said that. Rape sucks, it's one of the worst things that can happen to a person. There's no denying that. That is no excuse for killing a baby growing in a mother's womb.
No. I have a serious problem with abortion on a personal level, but other people don't. I think it's an absolute tragedy when someone chooses to abort their kid, but I don't believe it's my right to impose my beliefs on others.Mutantbear wrote:
so you think killing should be legal?Jay wrote:
Yeah, whatever. It's taking a human life no matter how you want to twist it. I'm pro-choice myself, but I find the mental gymnastics so many people perform to justify it to themselves to be nauseating.Adams_BJ wrote:
Foetus' aren't people. The law says so.
Which guns should we restrict?Adams_BJ wrote:
Banning guns is bad. Restricting guns is good. Responsibility is good.
Its simple really. All of them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Which guns should we restrict?Adams_BJ wrote:
Banning guns is bad. Restricting guns is good. Responsibility is good.
Probably because you're acting dumb? I don't need an essay, just:-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yes because writing that took me 5 seconds, whereas formulating an opinion somewhat well and trying to write it out well only takes 4.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If you have time to karma me about it, you have time to address it.3 minutes, 3 seconds ago -Sh1fty- (501) Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion e I don't have time to read everybody's posts. And pulling teeth is easy, dumb expression.
People say I'm dumb? what the fuck
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
So now that you know (and to save you the trouble, Bobby was shot with a handgun), tell me again that we need assault rifles to "combat tyranny."
How would you determine who is eligible, and why does it need to be harder for me to get a .223 AR15 over a .22 rifle? They're both semiautomatic weapons with 5 to 30 round magazines depending on the magazine you put in it. I can still kill somebody with a .22 just as easily as an AR-15.Adams_BJ wrote:
Its simple really. All of them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Which guns should we restrict?Adams_BJ wrote:
Banning guns is bad. Restricting guns is good. Responsibility is good.
You want a 22 rifle? Pretty easy, you want a pistol? a little harder, you want a semi auto? Harder again.
Every step up you go, another layer of requirements. You can say "well thats just amking it harder for the every day law abiding american!" Yeah? Well so what? Stop being lazy. you want it then you can get it, provided you are eligible
Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2013-01-28 16:54:14)
My bad, when I think of 22 here, I think of a bolt action. Mags don't need to be high cap. Keep it at 10 for everybody. Need bigger? Prove it and you can have it.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How would you determine who is eligible, and why does it need to be harder for me to get a .223 AR15 over a .22 rifle? They're both semiautomatic weapons with 5 to 30 round magazines depending on the magazine you put in it. I can still kill somebody with a .22 just as easily as an AR-15.Adams_BJ wrote:
Its simple really. All of them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Which guns should we restrict?
You want a 22 rifle? Pretty easy, you want a pistol? a little harder, you want a semi auto? Harder again.
Every step up you go, another layer of requirements. You can say "well thats just amking it harder for the every day law abiding american!" Yeah? Well so what? Stop being lazy. you want it then you can get it, provided you are eligible
As you seem mostly ignorant of our history, why should we take anything you have to say about US gun control policies seriously? If you profess to be that big of a patriot, why don't you have enough respect for the country to educate yourself about it? I confess that I'm pressing you for answers here not because I particularly care that much, but because watching you post about it is like a wreck that you can't tear your eyes away from.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How would you determine who is eligible, and why does it need to be harder for me to get a .223 AR15 over a .22 rifle? They're both semiautomatic weapons with 5 to 30 round magazines depending on the magazine you put in it. I can still kill somebody with a .22 just as easily as an AR-15.Adams_BJ wrote:
Its simple really. All of them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Which guns should we restrict?
You want a 22 rifle? Pretty easy, you want a pistol? a little harder, you want a semi auto? Harder again.
Every step up you go, another layer of requirements. You can say "well thats just amking it harder for the every day law abiding american!" Yeah? Well so what? Stop being lazy. you want it then you can get it, provided you are eligible
So alarmist.-Sh1fty- wrote:
And so will guns, but that won't stop a damn thing.coke wrote:
Light sabres were banned...-Sh1fty- wrote:
One person? Yes. A room full of people? No.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How would you determine who is eligible, and why does it need to be harder for me to get a .223 AR15 over a .22 rifle? They're both semiautomatic weapons with 5 to 30 round magazines depending on the magazine you put in it. I can still kill somebody with a .22 just as easily as an AR-15.
You're the one trying to restrict my liberties; you need to give me a valid reason not to have a high capacity magazine. I do not need to prove anything.Adams_BJ wrote:
My bad, when I think of 22 here, I think of a bolt action. Mags don't need to be high cap. Keep it at 10 for everybody. Need bigger? Prove it and you can have it.
My requirement is that I desire a firearm. My Constitution says I have the right to own one. It does not say which weapon I can own, it just says I can bear arms. The Constitution doesn't say I can't have a colonial era cannon. Once again you need to tell me why it should be hard for me to obtain the weapon of my choosing. Why are you regulating 99% of the population just in case 1% does something violent?And you determine their eligibility by the requirement for the firearm. Rifle for hunting, semi for shooting targets at a range or whatever, pistol for home defence. Register it, store it safely and you'll be left alone to do what you want with it. If you gun turns up in a crime or reported missing, prove it was stored safely at the time and get yourself a new one, can't prove it was stored safely and your eligibility goes down a rung. Super simple stuff, and you get to keep your guns. Sorta like straya.
Last edited by Adams_BJ (2013-01-28 21:10:44)
What if I desire to own a nuclear weapon? You know, just in case.-Sh1fty- wrote:
My requirement is that I desire a firearm. My Constitution says I have the right to own one. It does not say which weapon I can own, it just says I can bear arms. The Constitution doesn't say I can't have a colonial era cannon. Once again you need to tell me why it should be hard for me to obtain the weapon of my choosing. Why are you regulating 99% of the population just in case 1% does something violent?
