UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your family than save you from someone else with a gun.
so it's the opposite of protection.
who's "rules" ...ounce we shred the constitution??
- Thread starter blindbaby
- Start date
so it's the opposite of protection.
MidwesternGro
Well-Known Member
So you think convicted rapists should have a right to have guns?
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
What I am saying is that gun regulations are more likely to hurt people who just want to defend themselves, as opposed to keeping them out of the hands of dangerous criminals. People who intend to do harm to others don't give a fuck about laws.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
You keep repeating that and never provide factual studies.
so it's the opposite of debating.
MidwesternGro
Well-Known Member
So are you against regulations that make it illegal for convicted rapists to have guns?
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
If there was specific legislation outlawing rapist from having guns, I wouldn't be against it but I would realize that it is probably ineffective. More realistically, legislation targets all felons, which I am against, because there are a lot of non violent felons.
MidwesternGro
Well-Known Member
Ok, so you don't have a problem with laws that attempt to limit some people's access to arms.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
some months ago i dug up the actual "study" thats this specious like of claptrap came from.
it was not a study at all. it was never published in the journal "Trauma", and it was in fact not even a report.
Trauma listed a discussion panel in the upcoming emergency medicine conference in st paul minnesota, one of the scheduled panel discussions was about a ridiculous compilation of data and statistical evaluation of 3 different surveys of 2 large cities and one small city, over time periods ranging from 2 months to 1 year, with varying methodologies and varying ammounts of documentation about in one case, autopsy reports, in other cases, emergency room admissions, and still another case, police reports, and then all the data was mashed together and filtered using several ridiculous assumptions, to get the declared premise of the discussion panel at question.
Trauma never published the notes of the discussion panel, no peer reviewed reports resulted, and in the end it was a footnote on the footnote of an emergency medicine conference which was itself entirely un-noteworthy.
but according to "Handgun Control Inc" (now the brady campaign to stop gun violence) this panel discussion "proved" that if you own a gun your 20 times more likely to die from your own gun than an attacker's.
it proved nothing of the sort, it proved nothing in fact, because it was a panel discussion. the buffet was more interesting and provided more academic insight than this panel discussion.
but bucky loves his lies and his lefty tropes so he trots it out again and again.
So you think rape victim's should be disarmed and unable to defend themselves?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
*victims
how in the hell did you arrive at that retarded conclusion?
note: your conclusion is retarded but i enjoy your equal opportunity trolling generally.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
What the fuck are you talking about? The Patriot Act already shredded the constitution and the only profitable biz Obama wants rid of is Medicinal Cannabis. He certainly didn't put the Wall St crooks out of business instead he gave them all of our money? so go again... what are you asking?
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
Hey UB, funny as ever I see
I got a question. Why are these violent, homicidal felons doing out of Prison? I understand that you live in OR where hunting (that includes hunting Rippers lol) is the only need for a weapon so it likely is not as apparent to you that there are a lot of felonies that make it so that you cannot vote or carry a weapon that are quite harmless. fdd for example will be taxed with that label but here in Cali we are more enlightened and he will be allowed to exercise his right to vote. See now That is a good thread, why can't people convicted of crimes they do not believe should be crimes get their rights taken away to try and change that law? It makes no sense. And disarming felons screams us against them! Better get the weapons out of the hands of the Rebels!
Because implying that people want to arm convicted rapist is retarded. So I figured I'd flip the script.
Totoe
Well-Known Member
A lot of people prefer ranch over caesar.
beardo
Well-Known Member
Yes......
People should have and do have rights
Do you condone denying peoples rights and freedoms?
Should certain people, groups or demographics be entitled to rights and to the right to deny others those rights?
Doer
Well-Known Member
If we had no rulers then we could draw no straight lines.
The Constitution's 9th Amendment says we start with all rights. And even if we don't yet know what they are we sill have them.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Thank you. If you see it as good, that would really suck.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, i see.
but many people here are adamant about arming even convicted rapists and worse.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Yes, we want to give guns to rapist. You blew it wide open.
Straight lines are overrated, so is the constitution. The constitution limits government power but as we see this is not working at all. If you eliminate the rulers, then we ensure our safety from the most awesome killing force ever, government.