Sgt.Slappy
member
So... there are laws against murder, and you somehow equate this clearly pathological behavior, with laws and firearm ownership? How exactly did you come to this conclusion? This is a reasonable analogy to you?
Do you mean to tell me you believe firearm owners are murderers-in-waiting?
April 1st has past, so I can only believe you actually endorse that flawed liberal clap-trap. You know you really want to say: "Laws against firearms ownership don't prevent crime, but since our ultimate goal is the complete banning of firearms ownership, these laws are good. Then we may impose our socialist agenda upon an unarmed peasantry."
In light of what little you have to say about the merits of rights that are enumerated (NOT given by) in the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights... the above activities sound very reasonable for the likes of people who endorse victim disarmament.
Now, for crap's sake can we get back on topic? You know... the park shootout?
Do you mean to tell me you believe firearm owners are murderers-in-waiting?
Similarly, some restrictions on the ownership of firearms may be reasonable quite apart from whether or not such restrictions prevent crime.
April 1st has past, so I can only believe you actually endorse that flawed liberal clap-trap. You know you really want to say: "Laws against firearms ownership don't prevent crime, but since our ultimate goal is the complete banning of firearms ownership, these laws are good. Then we may impose our socialist agenda upon an unarmed peasantry."
Those reasons deserve reasonable consideration, not stupid remarks like peeing up a rope.
In light of what little you have to say about the merits of rights that are enumerated (NOT given by) in the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights... the above activities sound very reasonable for the likes of people who endorse victim disarmament.
Now, for crap's sake can we get back on topic? You know... the park shootout?