Philthydelphia mayor signs five new anti-gun-rights laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Little-Acorn said:
Notice that BAC completely ignores factual arguents given him, and keeps hammering away at the falsehood he introduced in his first post. Pretty typical strawman argument: Make up something that doesn't exist, and try to put people on the defensive, defending something they didn't particularly care about rather than arguing important issues such as freedom and the benefits and responsibilities it carries... such as the right to own and carry weapons, the reponsibility to use it properly, and the benefit of having far lower crime rates that results.


Hardly a surprise: how can someone "understand" somthing that didn't even exist until they made it up?

He also throws in several examples of another tired falsehood:


...while being careful to NOT address the real problem: people who use guns for criminal activity such as threatening, injuring, and killing others.

As long as he keeps chasing windmills (people "love" guns, guns kill with no help, etc.), he can keep arguing forever, without ever having to actually solve any real problems. Instant job security for people like BAC and other anti-gun-rights fanatics! What's not to love? :D


Then to top it off, he demands that OTHER people stop giving HIM emotional arguments and stick to facts instead... while he merrily ignores every fact that comes down the pike!


Only in America...! :lolup:
Click to expand...

A sure sign that I've won the argument is when someone starts speaking third person.
 
Prohibit individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court.


What's the reason for this? Is it written wrong?
 
blackascoal said:
A sure sign that I've won the argument is when someone starts speaking third person.
Click to expand...

What argument? Your basic proposal that people "love" guns", that that is their reason for wanting to keep and bear arms, that guns kill without any help from criminal humans?

You've presented no support for any of these ideas. Nor can you, of course, since they are the basest malarkey.

Sounds like your "sure signs" aren't quite as sure as you thought.

Are you ever going to address any real issues in this thread? Or just keep hammering on your made-up "facts"?

Back to the subject:
This Nutter seems to be relying on people to be as ignorant of history and law as he is himself. I wonder if any of the Philly newspapers will point out that the American revolution happened in part because of gun-control measures like those he just signed? And that he is playing the part of the British (they were the bad guys, for those of you educated in Philthydelphia public schools) rather than the colonials (the good guys)?

Somehow I doubt those facts will get much play. :D
 
Last edited:
I think the wording is confusing Water. Are they saying the person who has filed for protection must give up their firearm? I don't think so. I think it is referring to the person who has had the order filed against them.
 
uscitizen said:
That is state law in KY. I have held guns for friends in bitter divorce disputes.
Click to expand...

I had a friend ask me to once but I found out that it was just to hide the guns from her husband so she would get to keep them after the divorce. I refused.

I have held guns for people when they were involved in volatile situations though. Not necessarily just a divorce.
 
leaningright said:
I think the wording is confusing Water. Are they saying the person who has filed for protection must give up their firearm? I don't think so. I think it is referring to the person who has had the order filed against them.
Click to expand...

This is because the court is keenly aware that emotion and guns are a lethal mix. They know that most gun deaths are by people known to the shooter,
 
blackascoal said:
Another macho moment from something that dares acllitself "smarterthanyou"?

Amazing.
Click to expand...

6 years in the USMC. I've been shot at. I've shot at people. Nothing macho about it. I've done it before and I can do it again. I also know how to separate words and then spell them correctly, so I'm apparently smarterthanyou.
 
Are any of the gun lovers rich. Mostly not. They are the you got my job, and my self esteem, I'm be dam if you'll get my gun type Bubba's.
 
blackascoal said:
Another macho moment from something that dares acllitself "smarterthanyou"?

Amazing.
Click to expand...

A few minutes ago, BAC was crowing that using third person was somehow a "sure sign" of something. What was that again?

28 minutes to reverse his own judgement completely. With some people, that could be a record. With BAC, I doubt that's true. :lolup:
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
6 years in the USMC. I've been shot at. I've shot at people. Nothing macho about it. I've done it before and I can do it again. I also know how to separate words and then spell them correctly, so I'm apparently smarterthanyou.
Click to expand...

If you're judging "smarter" by a typo, you've just proved my point.

I wouldn't give a damn if your name was Patton you and your guns against the police isn't really an argument at all. It's just macho "take this gun from my cold dead hands" bullshit and would be the result of such a gross stupidity.

They'd peel your popgun right out of your cold brains blown against the wall hands.
 
blackascoal said:
If you're judging "smarter" by a typo, you've just proved my point.

I wouldn't give a damn if your name was Patton you and your guns against the police isn't really an argument at all. It's just macho "take this gun from my cold dead hands" bullshit and would be the result of such a gross stupidity.

They'd peel your popgun right out of your cold brains blown against the wall hands.
Click to expand...

then you obviously missed the point. I want YOU to come and take it. If you're so fired up about taking peoples guns, stand up and come get mine personally.

you also overestimate the ability of police.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then you obviously missed the point. I want YOU to come and take it. If you're so fired up about taking peoples guns, stand up and come get mine personally.

you also overestimate the ability of police.
Click to expand...

You've got it twisted.

I don't give a damn about you or your gun. You're just a blip on my screen.

Id rather you keep your gun and do what many with them do .. open wide and blow your own brains out.

"YOU come get my gun" .. what the fuck are you .. a child?

I have no fear of the stupid and anyone who would utter such incredible macho-girl ignorance is most ceratinly not someone to take seriously.

I overestimate the ability of the police?????

:shock:

Stupid.
 
leaningright said:
I had a friend ask me to once but I found out that it was just to hide the guns from her husband so she would get to keep them after the divorce. I refused.

I have held guns for people when they were involved in volatile situations though. Not necessarily just a divorce.
Click to expand...

No this was not property hiding. Just keeping the guns till an EPO was removed.
In KY if you have an EPO filed against you you cannot posses any guns until it is lifted. Not even for hunting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top