#NRAlogic

[ginwilly]

you're not taking down any police forces, bear.

so lay down your guns and submit comrades

 

[UncleBuck]

so lay down your guns and submit comrades

or you could go ahead and waco yourself.

but if you do, please wait until monday. the masters is on.

 

[UncleBuck]

you quoted me out of context-

i am afraid. of constitution deniers.

i guess you're afraid of yourself then, because the constitution does not give unlimited rights of gun ownership by any means.

 

[UncleBuck]

You missed my point. If you propose to restrict gun access by civilians, the only honest option is to restrict it to all civilians. The idea that police forces (excluding MPs) have a legitimate claim to more gun than their jurisdiction(s) will permit nonuniformed civilians is pervasive but inherently corrupt. My opinion. cn

the alternative choice is to make all citizens who wish to own a gun go through the same training and tests that police go through.

your whole point is that you want to be able to outgun the police. it's not exactly a convincing argument.

 

[FootballFirst]

i guess you're afraid of yourself then, because the constitution does not give unlimited rights of gun ownership by any means.

funny, it doesn't limit gun ownership either.

 

[ginwilly]

the masters is on.

Yes!! Best stories of the day were a 14 year old and a 53 year old.

 

[UncleBuck]

funny, it doesn't limit gun ownership either.

legislation that does limit gun ownership can be consistent with the constitution, however.

all out of parables? you gonna break out your book of fairy tales about a zombie kid now?

 

[cannabineer]

the alternative choice is to make all citizens who wish to own a gun go through the same training and tests that police go through.

your whole point is that you want to be able to outgun the police. it's not exactly a convincing argument.

Show me one place where I stated or implied that I want to outgun the police. cn

 

[cannabineer]

Yes!! Best stories of the day were a 14 year old and a 53 year old.

That sounds so wrong. cn

 

[UncleBuck]

Show me one place where I stated or implied that I want to outgun the police. cn

why else do you need to match or beat their firepower?

 

[UncleBuck]

That sounds so wrong. cn

i wasn't gonna touch that one, not even with my ten-foot bear-prodding pole.

 

[FootballFirst]

legislation that does limit gun ownership can be consistent with the constitution, however.

so what? the same can be said for opposing legislation.

 

[cannabineer]

why else do you need to match or beat their firepower?

See? You snuck the goalposts over. Suddenly it's "match or beat". The two are morally very different. cn

 

[cannabineer]

i wasn't gonna touch that one, not even with my ten-foot bear-prodding pole.

Those ten-foot bears can be remarkably quick to register an opinion. cn

 

[UncleBuck]

See? You snuck the goalposts over. Suddenly it's "match or beat". The two are morally very different. cn

i thought i was moving the goalpost back to where it needed to be, since a review of your posts only reveals a desire to match their firepower.

the question remains, why?*

 

[thecoolman]

All the talk about gun control and the bill will be probably be dead as soon as it hits the House of representatives...Yes the peoples house.

 

[cannabineer]

i thought i was moving the goalpost back to where it needed to be, since a review of your posts only reveals a desire to match their firepower.

the question remains, why?*

Because giving some civilians more power than others is inherently corrupt. cn

 

[UncleBuck]

All the talk about gun control and the bill will be probably be dead as soon as it hits the House of representatives...Yes the peoples house.

if it were the people's house, they would vote for strict, universal background checks by 9 to 1.

if it were the people's house, a national gun registry would pass by 7 to 3.

if it were the people's house, high capacity magazines would be banned on a 2 to 1 vote.

if it were the people's house, assault rifles would be banned on a squeaker, 11 to 9.

but when you're on the NRAs payroll, you don't exactly bother to listen to your less generous constituents.*

 

[UncleBuck]

Because giving some civilians more power than others is inherently corrupt. cn

so the police couldn't call in the national guard?

it just falls apart so easily, it's not like most of your arguments.

 

[thecoolman]

if it were the people's house, they would vote for strict, universal background checks by 9 to 1.

if it were the people's house, a national gun registry would pass by 7 to 3.

if it were the people's house, high capacity magazines would be banned on a 2 to 1 vote.

if it were the people's house, assault rifles would be banned on a squeaker, 11 to 9.

but when you're on the NRAs payroll, you don't exactly bother to listen to your less generous constituents.*

The communist b.s dribble just doesn't befit you buck at least while your in America.