killed 50 from two blocks away from the 32nd floor....

so you'll just surrender your freedom and submit? if that works for you, great. is there some 'right' of yours that you would never surrender? like your right to free speech? would you retain that?

Taken your peashooter to the courthouse to demonstrate your "rights" yet?

I thought not.
 
Well, do we all agree then that he should not of been allowed to have this weapon? I think that’s the preliminary questions.

If we all agree then, what steps should or can be taken to prevent something like this from getting such a weapon?

What weapon exactly are you suggesting he had; because you're being really vague in your attempt to get some kind of support?
 
False equivalence, an auto's purpose by design isn't to kill other people, can't say the same for a gun

And yet it's happening.
It would seem that left's opposition to firearms in not the number of deaths, but instead the time frame they occur within; because more people are killed by cars, every year, then killed by firearms and if this was truly about the number of deaths, they would be outcries wanting to hold car manufactures responsible.
 
Reports this morning say he was a pilot and owned two airplanes.

Would you rather he crashed a plane into the crowd?

Airplanes are strictly regulated, from what I read this man did not have an active pilots license because he had let his medical clearance laps.
 
I think it's more than the NRA, but the NRA is part of it.

In America, it's a weird mix of gun worship & a warped desire for any kind of fame. I genuinely don't know how you prevent tragedies like this, but it sure would be nice if people didn't have the kind of weaponry that is needed to cause such a toll. I'll never oppose someone's right to own a gun, but not guns like these.

Again - not sure how he got them. If these weapons were against the law, then we should take a closer look at the enforcement of that law.

There is no "gun worship" you idiot. :palm:
 
Seriously? This is your argument?

No. That is a statement. As was the previous clear statement, he used fully automatic weapons and unless he had the correct licenses he obtained those illegally. Neither of those "argue", they simply provide information.
 
Different topic, but Cops don't carry guns to kill people, and please, don't bring up cop shootings, those incidents amount to a extremely small percentage of what the overwhelming majority of cops do in their daily duties

Then why are people so adamant about taking away the rights of law abiding citizens, when those incidents amount to an extremely small percentage of what the overwhelming majority of gun owners do in their daily activities?
 
NRA is part of the problem, big part, they feed the gun worship

You address the problem by talking about it, now any serious attempt to begin a discussion is automatically killed by such as the NRA

If you accept the Second Amendment, which I think is as relevant as the Third Amendmemt, you begin with the easy access, if one can own a gun the Amendment doesn't say you can own any kind of gun manufactured, even Scalise agreed, no right is absolute

Once again; there is no "gun worship" and it's just a feel good phrase that the liberal snowflakes use in an attempt to garner support.
 
Nobody wants to discuss if he should have been allowed access to these weapons or not?

Sure, I will discuss it.
He used an illegal weapon smuggled into the country.

No gun law could have stopped this crime because he used an already illegal weapon.
 
I agree we will lose, if newton wasn’t able to cause change no way this well. That doesn’t make it right.

And that by itself is telling; because you didn't say "there won't be any changes made" and instead said "I agree we will lose", which shows this isn't about improvement and instead is about WINNING. :good4u:
 
And yet it's happening.
It would seem that left's opposition to firearms in not the number of deaths, but instead the time frame they occur within; because more people are killed by cars, every year, then killed by firearms and if this was truly about the number of deaths, they would be outcries wanting to hold car manufactures responsible.

Nope. We need cars in a modern society. Guns, not.
 
Speeding is ILLEGAL and our governments make an effort to control it. Automobiles are strictly regulated. If a person speeds to much too often he will lose his right to drive.

And the shooter has now lost his rights to own any more firearms. :good4u:
 
Back
Top