So, the Republican terrorist in Louisiana...

[ms_ann_thrope]

Sometimes you can get it from them cheaper than you can get it off the streets.

And well maintained.

 

[BotanyBoy]

@Bounty

Different gun laws isn't going to change shit. People are still going to be able to get their hands on straps. As long as the Military have guns, guns will always be out here.

Plus they're going to have to get all the untraceable guns off the streets first.

Different laws can change all that fucking shit really fucking fast.

Illegal unlicensed possession/carry of a weapon? 20 year mandatory....no good time. Make illegal possession of a handgun fucking HURT then enforce it. Really just that simple.

That's not what he said at all. He said the people breaking the laws will still break the laws after more laws are written.

That doesn't mean different laws would have no effect.

I love it when you gun nuts are so black and white, ABSOLUTELY incapable of anything close to middle ground you would gladly start WWIII over mandatory licencing for handguns.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Different laws can change all that fucking shit really fucking fast.



That doesn't mean different laws would have no effect.

I love it when you gun nuts are so black and white, ABSOLUTELY incapable of anything close to middle ground you would gladly start WWIII over mandatory licencing for handguns.

Maybe we need more speeding laws.

 

[jonpatato]

What's interesting is how every anti-individual rights pseudo-political wacko group swoops in to use every tragedy to promote their own agendas.

I agree with you. In a few more years will all be vegetarians, tree hugers whatever else they can cram down our throats.

 

[eyer]

This thread is a gas...

Reading stoners, who used to post away high sitting on their Goodwill-stolen couch telling us about all the guns they had at hand (a felony), now pontificate that even more effective gun control laws are needed...

...while a convicted felon, a bozo who has voluntarily given up his natural right to legally keep and bear arms for the rest of his life, spews about the guns he and his crew still access.

Blatant felons as far as the current laws of the land go about gun possession, one preaching about how this nation needs more effective gun control laws, while the other proves exactly how it's not the law but the individual that matters most...

...even fantasizing that anyone but their fellow dumbfvcks will ever even possibly take them seriously.

Too friggin' funny.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I agree with you. In a few more years will all be vegetarians, tree hugers whatever else they can cram down our throats.

Some things change automatically out of necessity. Say all the chickens are wiped out.

What's for breakfast?

Bacon and ___?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Fuck you.

You'd need Rohypnol. Is that an admission?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

This thread is a gas...

Reading stoners, who used to post away high sitting on their Goodwill-stolen couch telling us about all the guns they had at hand (a felony), now pontificate that even more effective gun control laws are needed...

...while a convicted felon, a bozo who has voluntarily given up his natural right to legally keep and bear arms for the rest of his life, spews about the guns he and his crew still access.

Blatant felons as far as the current laws of the land go about gun possession, one preaching about how this nation needs more effective gun control laws, while the other proves exactly how it's not the law but the individual that matters most...

...even fantasizing that anyone but their fellow dumbfvcks will ever even possibly take them seriously.

Too friggin' funny.

It's something to do.

 

[smoothg103rd]

Different laws can change all that fucking shit really fucking fast.

Illegal unlicensed possession/carry of a weapon? 20 year mandatory....no good time. Make illegal possession of a handgun fucking HURT then enforce it. Really just that simple.



That doesn't mean different laws would have no effect.

I love it when you gun nuts are so black and white, ABSOLUTELY incapable of anything close to middle ground you would gladly start WWIII over mandatory licencing for handguns.

That's too much time, brah. Murders that cop out don't even get that much time. 20 years for carry a gun, that's crazy.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

You'd need Rohypnol. Is that an admission?

You've got serious issues.

Bronze...

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

That's too much time, brah. Murders that cop out don't even get that much time. 20 years for carry a gun, that's crazy.

20 years for speeding. That will fix the traffic problems.

We already have the highest prison population in the world.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Maybe we need more speeding laws.

If you have a major speeding/moving violations issue causing problems in your area for simple lack of speed limits and denial of radar systems for cops because freedumb I'd agree with you. Your traffic laws and or how they were enforced would need some pretty serious changes.

 

[Yardley]

Of course.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-dont-blame-gun-owners-for-acts-of-criminals/

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, will tell the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that the federal government should not blame law abiding gun owners for the acts of criminals by enacting new gun control legislation.

"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families," LaPierre will say Wednesday, according to prepared remarks released by the NRA.

This is the opposite of the NRA saying that laws prevent crime.

You just defeated your own argument.

He does that a lot. I am trying to understand his bizzare posting style. It seems that if the word he wants is contained in a quote it means he "wins." In this case, the word was "law."

It's technically Wayne's argument. You're saying that legal gun owners don't follow laws?

It is exactly the opposite of the argument you are making. You are really bad at logic.

Ms_ann-thrope did not say anything of the sort.

Yes legal gun owners follow laws. That does not mean that they would not engage in the same good behavior if the laws were not extant.

The point (which you missed entirely) is that criminals do not follow laws, not that more laws would encourage more law abiding people to continue to do what they were already doing which was not shooting people that did not need to be shot.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You've got serious issues.

Bronze...

I'm not the one who is afraid to answer the question.

I'll be very honest, I don't slip people date rape drugs. One of the main reasons why I don't do it is because there are laws against it and I wouldn't want those consequences.

It's also morally reprehensible. If you'd like to argue if our morals come from laws I'd be happy to start a thread on it.

Would you mind please answering the question?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

If you have a major speeding/moving violations issue causing problems in your area for simple lack of speed limits and denial of radar systems for cops because freedumb I'd agree with you. Your traffic laws and or how they were enforced would need some pretty serious changes.

It's an anecdote.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I'm not the one who is afraid to answer the question.

I'll be very honest, I don't slip people date rape drugs. One of the main reasons why I don't do it is because there are laws against it and I wouldn't want those consequences.

It's also morally reprehensible. If you'd like to argue if our morals come from laws I'd be happy to start a thread on it.

Would you mind please answering the question?

Since when do moderators need alts, Bronzeage?

Get a fucking life already.

 

[Yardley]

Different laws can change all that fucking shit really fucking fast.

Illegal unlicensed possession/carry of a weapon? 20 year mandatory....no good time. Make illegal possession of a handgun fucking HURT then enforce it. Really just that simple.



That doesn't mean different laws would have no effect.

I love it when you gun nuts are so black and white, ABSOLUTELY incapable of anything close to middle ground you would gladly start WWIII over mandatory licencing for handguns.

No one that intends to use a gun to commit a crime is going to license it. Enforcement of actual jail time for people that are caught using a gun in the commission of a crime doesn't happen, why would they enforce it on someone that did not get around to using it? Everything is plead down or the system grinds to a halt.

 

[smoothg103rd]

I'm not the one who is afraid to answer the question.

I'll be very honest, I don't slip people date rape drugs. One of the main reasons why I don't do it is because there are laws against it and I wouldn't want those consequences.

It's also morally reprehensible. If you'd like to argue if our morals come from laws I'd be happy to start a thread on it.

Would you mind please answering the question?

So if there wasn't laws you would do it? That's fucked up.

 

[Yardley]

So if there wasn't laws you would do it? That's fucked up.

Right?

"One of the main reasons???"

As an aside, he thinks it is wrong.

As if people that don't think shooting someone is wrong are more concerned with the law forbidding it then, for example, getting caught.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

So if there wasn't laws you would do it? That's fucked up.

Fucker's gone ape-shit or something.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

This is the opposite of the NRA saying that laws prevent crime.



He does that a lot. I am trying to understand his bizzare posting style. It seems that if the word he wants is contained in a quote it means he "wins." In this case, the word was "law."



It is exactly the opposite of the argument you are making. You are really bad at logic.

Ms_ann-thrope did not say anything of the sort.

Yes legal gun owners follow laws. That does not mean that they would not engage in the same good behavior if the laws were not extant.

The point (which you missed entirely) is that criminals do not follow laws, not that more laws would encourage more law abiding people to continue to do what they were already doing which was not shooting people that did not need to be shot.

You don't read my posts. I said specifically that laws do stop people from doing things.

Yes, lots of people exceed the speed limit when they drive. That doesn't mean they break other laws.

That's an issue you need to bring up with Mr. LaPierre. He said, and this is why I bolded it, they were law-abiding. He didn't say they were good people, or that they wouldn't do anything that someone else would morally object to, or that wouldn't hurt anyone else.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

You don't read my posts. I said specifically that laws do stop people from doing things.

Yes, lots of people exceed the speed limit when they drive. That doesn't mean they break other laws.

That's an issue you need to bring up with Mr. LaPierre. He said, and this is why I bolded it, they were law-abiding. He didn't say they were good people, or that they wouldn't do anything that someone else would morally object to, or that wouldn't hurt anyone else.

Oh my fucking God!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So if there wasn't laws you would do it? That's fucked up.

No, which is why I said it's also morally reprehensible.

 

[BotanyBoy]

...even fantasizing that anyone but their fellow dumbfvcks will ever even possibly take them seriously.

Too friggin' funny.

See that is where you're wrong....nobody takes me seriously and I know it.

That's too much time, brah. Murders that cop out don't even get that much time. 20 years for carry a gun, that's crazy.

Well hey....make illegal carry a hot thing man. If 20 mandatory minimum isn't too much for drugs it sure the fuck isn't to much for illegal weapons.

20 years for speeding. That will fix the traffic problems.

We already have the highest prison population in the world.

So let the 70,000 or so potheads out and replace them with thugs carrying without a licence. Much rather have stoners around than gun wielding psychopaths.

Also you know what the fine is in OR for littering? 12,000 bucks in some places....guess which state you see little if any litter in? Take a cruise through sometime, practically litter free.

 

[Yardley]

I'm not the one who is afraid to answer the question.

I'll be very honest, I don't slip people date rape drugs. One of the main reasons why I don't do it is because there are laws against it and I wouldn't want those consequences.

It's also morally reprehensible. If you'd like to argue if our morals come from laws I'd be happy to start a thread on it.

Would you mind please answering the question?

Go for it, start that thread. You have it exactly backwards. You do that a lot.

Laws come from a moral framework of what is right and what is wrong as agreed to by society. We don't create laws out of the ether and then comport our societal expectations to whatever the law says behaviors should be or behaviors that are proscribed.