Protecting children from murder/drag shows.

LV426 said:
Sandy Hook was the big turning point for me...before it, I didn't think banning guns was the answer. But I do now and the reason is because I was pushed to this place by ammosexuals who think their hobby is more important than the lives of children.

So all those gun-fucking losers out there are the reason why I now think all guns should be banned when I didn't before.
Click to expand...

In fairness, my "children" are 45 and 49, I don't have grandchildren, so children are not at the forefront of my everyday thinking.
To be honest, they tend to make me itch if they're not my own. I'm much more into puppies and kittens when it comes to the "cute" factor.

Therefore, while protecting children is obviously a very important priority which I don't mean to minimize,
it's not my only consideration when considering the laws of our land.

We are probably the only nation on the planet where the right to privately own forearms is guaranteed as part and parcel of being a citizen in good standing.
It's really, really hard to give up a globally unique thing which would unlikely be recovered if ever lost.

Thus, people with whom I share virtually no other political beliefs have my sympathy when they seek to preserve a very special right.
They lose it only when they refuse to admit the inappropriateness of civilians owning military weapons.
I blame that partially on the fucking idiots who put the word "militia" into the Second Amendement.

Also, they make it more likely that they will lose all of their gun rights because of their inflexibility on the assault weapons issue.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Whatever happened to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Apparently the gun-humpers' right to have military-style assault weapons capable of mass death trumps that little forgotten bit.
Click to expand...

They are incredibly selfish, only care about the individual from their own perspective. I suspect most children would prefer to be protected.
 
evince said:
What you expected hasn’t happened
Click to expand...

Because I didn't break any rule.

Accusing them of supporting grooming is totally OK, per Damocles. As long as I don't accuse them of committing those acts directly, or having an encounter with a child, I am not breaking any rule.
 
Yakuda said:
You seem confused. I don't give a shit if you want to go watch a guy dressed as dolly parton dance around in a g-string. You leftists are really fucking dense. If that guy dances in front of kids out him in jail. If someone waves a gun in front of kids put that person in jail.
Click to expand...

So you agree there are limits to the right to bear arms? Its okay to restrict the right to bear arms in front of kids?
 
Yakuda said:
You seem confused. I don't give a shit if you want to go watch a guy dressed as dolly parton dance around in a g-string. You leftists are really fucking dense. If that guy dances in front of kids out him in jail. If someone waves a gun in front of kids put that person in jail.
Click to expand...

So dancing in front of children isn't allowed? Are you the mayor of the town in Footloose?
 
When somebody's posts are always annoying for me to read, I simply put them on ignore and let them post away.

I have no curiosity as to what they're saying, because by that point, I know that it's all drivel anyway.

I don't have everybody with sharply different views on ignore.
Not at all.

I have everybody who's either too boorish to be entertaining
or anybody whose responses make no effort to follow logic
on ignore.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
In fairness, my "children" are 45 and 49, I don't have grandchildren, so children are not at the forefront of my everyday thinking.
To be honest, they tend to make me itch if they're not my own. I'm much more into puppies and kittens when it comes to the "cute" factor.

Therefore, while protecting children is obviously a very important priority which I don't mean to minimize,
it's not my only consideration when considering the laws of our land.

We are probably the only nation on the planet where the right to privately own forearms is guaranteed as part and parcel of being a citizen in good standing.
It's really, really hard to give up a globally unique thing which would unlikely be recovered if ever lost.

Thus, people with whom I share virtually no other political beliefs have my sympathy when they seek to preserve a very special right.
They lose it only when they refuse to admit the inappropriateness of civilians owning military weapons.
I blame that partially on the fucking idiots who put the word "militia" into the Second Amendement.

Also, they make it more likely that they will lose all of their gun rights because of their inflexibility on the assault weapons issue.
Click to expand...

Except that guarantee is only recent to 2003, and the previous 200+ years of the 2nd Amendment never guaranteed that right.

We do not need guns in order to have a functioning democracy, and I would argue that guns work against democracy because they are tools of intimidation; so showing up with a rifle at a polling station isn't democracy, it's fascism.

Guns cannot thrive without the fascism that makes their abundance necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top