FLORIDA PASSES GUN CONTROL

chiqifella said:
shits been explained to you dimwitbuck. sorry your drunken reading comprehension sucks.
stop smoking your own shit weed maybe that would help?
Click to expand...
the chemicals in SSRIs must just work completely differently in all those nations with gun control. that explains it.

you are illiterate ?

what foreign country are you from?
 
chiqifella said:
Its the drug that every school shooter was taking before they killed kids.
anti depressants are typically ssri's today, they come with suicide warnings, and used to be
illegal to prescribe to children, but not anymore. School shootings became popular when docs were allowed to prescribe(rx)
ssri's to kids.
Click to expand...
But even if we outlawed SSRIs tomorrow, there's just to many already out there. They'd just get them somewhere else. The problem is not enough SSRIs especially for the teachers.
 
Justin-case said:
But even if we outlawed SSRIs tomorrow, there's just to many already out there. They'd just get them somewhere else. The problem is not enough SSRIs especially for the teachers.
Click to expand...
that is so true.

and i know that as an american, when i want to question someone's reading comprehension, i always ask "you are illiterate ?", because that is how any real true american would ask someone if they can fucking read.

chiqifella said:
you are illiterate ?
Click to expand...
 
Give this a 5 min listen. Its our former prime minister talking about why and what worked for us. He was the leader of the Liberal (our conservative ) party.
He is a little more articulate than trump...lol
 
PCXV said:
The non-gun owning majority is protecting themselves from the offensive force of the gun owning minority. Or does the negligence and irresponsibility of gun owners not count as offensive force?
Click to expand...

So when a car thief steals your car, you don't go after THAT car thief, instead you take away your peaceful neighbors car, because "cars" ?

You can't be the protector, if you are the one initiating the force on a neutral or peaceful person. How will you enforce your proposals on neutral and peaceful gun owning people? Will you use guns?
 
Rob Roy said:
So when a car thief steals your car, you don't go after THAT car thief, instead you take away your peaceful neighbors car, because "cars" ?

You can't be the protector, if you are the one initiating the force on a neutral or peaceful person. How will you enforce your proposals on neutral and peaceful gun owning people? Will you use guns?
Click to expand...
stop being stupid. Cars are not made for the purpose of killing. Guns are. The question is asked how much killing are we in need of ? Do you really need an AR to protect yourself ? If you can't kill something with 3-4 shots then you might need not be a killer. My Glock and shotgun is all I need to defend any intruder coming in my home. I have a Colt collection ( in box ) that will be passed on to my son. I still believe in gun laws and gun control
 
londonfog said:
stop being stupid. Cars are not made for the purpose of killing. Guns are. The question is asked how much killing are we in need of ? Do you really need an AR to protect yourself ? If you can't kill something with 3-4 shots then you might need not be a killer. My Glock and shotgun is all I need to defend any intruder coming in my home. I have a Colt collection ( in box ) that will be passed on to my son. I still believe in gun laws and gun control
Click to expand...


What other people possess, doesn't become my business or yours until THAT person tries to take away what you or I possess.

If we try to take away what another peaceful or neutral person possesses aren't we somehow trying to create a right we don't have? Doesn't that make us the aggressor ?

So, if I don't like beer and drunks kill people, I somehow have a right to grab or limit your beer stash even though you just sit at home quietly getting inebriated, reading Laundry Man times and sniffing pilfered underwear you found in the dryers not harming anyone ?
 
Rob Roy said:
So when a car thief steals your car, you don't go after THAT car thief, instead you take away your peaceful neighbors car, because "cars" ?
Click to expand...
Lets look at the car analogy in a different way.
Cars that fail to comply with the countries road and safty rules cannot be sold and driven on the road.
A car needs to be registered.
To legally drive a car you have to be licenced and complete test's.
 
Lucky Luke said:
Lets look at the car analogy in a different way.
Cars that fail to comply with the countries road and safty rules cannot be sold and driven on the road.
A car needs to be registered.
To legally drive a car you have to be licenced and complete test's.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your presenting your point of view in a reasonable fashion, while disagreeing with the underlying premise.

If cars are on your own property and you want to drive them no licensing and government thugs apply, are you willing to
leave people alone if they want to stroke their gun on their own property ?
 
Rob Roy said:
I appreciate your presenting your point of view in a reasonable fashion, while disagreeing with the underlying premise.

If cars are on your own property and you want to drive them no licensing and government thugs apply, are you willing to
leave people alone if they want to stroke their gun on their own property ?
Click to expand...
I haven't got a problem with guns at all. I got my own firearm at 14 or 15 or something, I don't have one now but that's because I don't have a use for one.
Nearly all my friends have firearms as I live in a rural state and hunting/fishing/target shooting are large sports.. We didn't ban guns here in Australia. We introduced mandatory federal laws and licensing (states follow a federal guideline and have some leeway to suit). There is a big difference between that and banning guns.

Lets face it. Guns can kill/maim allot people very fast and EASILY. A child can use them.....
But what we did worked here. We had about 10 mass shooting in a short period of time. The conservative party introduced federal gun laws in about 1996 after the worlds largest mass shooting at the time happened in my little state. The Port Arthur massacre its called- goggle it. We haven't had a mass shooting ever since. I'm not saying we wont get another because of cause we will. But the laws did work. Irrefutable proof.
Want to hunt? No problem, pass the back ground check and do the cause and test and you have a licence. Want to purchase a gun? No problem buy the gun safe, have it inspected and go and purchase the weapons that you need and your licence is for.
Want to sit in in your armchair stroking and pointing your 45 at the TV screen whist in your underwear? Ummm NO.
Its a win/ win.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy said:
What other people possess, doesn't become my business or yours until THAT person tries to take away what you or I possess.

If we try to take away what another peaceful or neutral person possesses aren't we somehow trying to create a right we don't have? Doesn't that make us the aggressor ?

So, if I don't like beer and drunks kill people, I somehow have a right to grab or limit your beer stash even though you just sit at home quietly getting inebriated, reading Laundry Man times and sniffing pilfered underwear you found in the dryers not harming anyone ?
Click to expand...
you should worry about affording a fridge before affording a gun, food stamp king.
 
Lucky Luke said:
I haven't got a problem with guns at all. I got my own firearm at 14 or 15 or something, I don't have one now but that's because I don't have a use for one.
Nearly all my friends have firearms as I live in a rural state and hunting/fishing/target shooting are large sports.. We didn't ban guns here in Australia. We introduced mandatory federal laws and licensing (states follow a federal guideline and have some leeway to suit). There is a big difference between that and banning guns.

Lets face it. Guns can kill/maim allot people very fast and EASILY. A child can use them.....
But what we did worked here. We had about 10 mass shooting in a short period of time. The conservative party introduced federal gun laws in about 1996 after the worlds largest mass shooting at the time happened in my little state. The Port Arthur massacre its called- goggle it. We haven't had a mass shooting ever since. I'm not saying we wont get another because of cause we will. But the laws did work. Irrefutable proof.
Want to hunt? No problem, pass the back ground check and do the cause and test and you have a licence. Want to purchase a gun? No problem buy the gun safe, have it inspected and go and purchase the weapons that you need and your licence is for.
Want to sit in in your armchair stroking and pointing your 45 at the TV screen whist in your underwear? Ummm NO.
Its a win/ win.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe in equal rights and are willing to use guns preemptively against people who haven't attacked anyone? (that was a rhetorical question)

That's obvious, by your endorsing some people being able to ACTUALLY use guns against other people who simply possess guns, but no longer have the permission of the people willing to use guns to enforce their gun confiscation law.

Let's face it, if you've never harmed anyone and somebody comes up to you with a piece of paper in one hand and a gun in the other and says I'm here to take away your gun, the person doing the taking is threatening offensive force against a person who hasn't harmed anyone.

How come you endorse using guns to threaten people who've never harmed anyone ?
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy said:
So you don't believe in equal rights and are willing to use guns preemptively against people who haven't attacked anyone? (that was a rhetorical question)

That's obvious, by your endorsing some people being able to ACTUALLY use guns against other people who simply possess guns, but no longer have the permission of the people willing to use guns to enforce their gun confiscation law.

Let's face it, if you've never harmed anyone and somebody comes up to you with a piece of paper in one hand and a gun in the other and says I'm here to take away your gun, the person doing the taking is threatening offensive force against a person who hasn't harmed anyone.

How come you endorse using guns to threaten people who've never harmed anyone ?
Click to expand...
triggered by effective gun laws
 
Rob Roy said:
So you don't believe in equal rights and are willing to use guns preemptively against people who haven't attacked anyone? (that was a rhetorical question)

That's obvious, by your endorsing some people being able to ACTUALLY use guns against other people who simply possess guns, but no longer have the permission of the people willing to use guns to enforce their gun confiscation law.

Let's face it, if you've never harmed anyone and somebody comes up to you with a piece of paper in one hand and a gun in the other and says I'm here to take away your gun, the person doing the taking is threatening offensive force against a person who hasn't harmed anyone.

How come you endorse using guns to threaten people who've never harmed anyone ?
Click to expand...
Your rambling and not making any sense.
 
UncleBuck said:
like shopping at a store while black?
Click to expand...

Is this hypothetical store owned by somebody or is it just the kind of place where a guy could go and shit on the floor because it's unowned property ?

Would you use a gun to force a black store owner to serve you, if he preferred not to and didn't consent to your presence on his property ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top