Just so stupid. Vast majority of gun violence and shootings are via handguns, not high capacity ARs and such.

(10-23-2015 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Definitely not another tax. Honestly, given gun statistics, not sure any "solution" is needed. I don't fall for the ol' "Well, something has to be done" nonsense. That's just a technique to get people to go with emotion rather than with their brain.

Yeah, I wish more people would use their brain too. Like acknowledging the painfully obvious correlation between guns and deaths.

(10-23-2015 10:52 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Definitely not another tax. Honestly, given gun statistics, not sure any "solution" is needed. I don't fall for the ol' "Well, something has to be done" nonsense. That's just a technique to get people to go with emotion rather than with their brain.

Yeah, I wish more people would use their brain too. Like acknowledging the painfully obvious correlation between guns and deaths.

This.

(10-23-2015 10:52 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Definitely not another tax. Honestly, given gun statistics, not sure any "solution" is needed. I don't fall for the ol' "Well, something has to be done" nonsense. That's just a technique to get people to go with emotion rather than with their brain.

Yeah, I wish more people would use their brain too. Like acknowledging the painfully obvious correlation between guns and deaths.

(10-23-2015 10:48 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Just so stupid. Vast majority of gun violence and shootings are via handguns, not high capacity ARs and such.

Baby steps.

LOL the laws in LA SF .....it is a misdemeanor violation. Typical feel good liberal junk.

(10-23-2015 10:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Because the link between guns and gun deaths is as tenuous as the link between temperatures and pirates.

(10-23-2015 10:55 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  LOL the laws in LA SF .....it is a misdemeanor violation. Typical feel good liberal junk.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, and I'm not sure you're sure what you're arguing.

(10-23-2015 10:20 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

Thats what the left does best

(10-23-2015 10:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Homicides aren't the only types of gun deaths.

(10-23-2015 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Because the link between guns and gun deaths is as tenuous as the link between temperatures and pirates.

I got rid of the silly one...

(10-23-2015 11:00 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:20 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

Thats what the left does best

The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

(10-23-2015 11:00 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Homicides aren't the only types of gun deaths.

I did not say your chart was wrong, I pointed out it's incomplete.. Of course more guns mean more gun deaths. More cars mean more car deaths and more cold means more cold deaths.

If I banned cars in Minnesota 361 fewer people would have died in auto accidents last year. Of course more would have died of exposure trying to walk to work...

Banning guns does not reduce homicides, see the graphs. What it does is swap one kind for another. There seems to be *no correlation* let alone a causation between the two.

(10-23-2015 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:00 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:20 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

Thats what the left does best

The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

It does not say anything about the internet either...

(10-23-2015 11:09 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:00 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:20 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

Thats what the left does best

The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

It does not say anything about the internet either...

(10-23-2015 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:09 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:00 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 10:20 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I want to say New York City tried it?.. and it went over like a lead balloon

And agreed VA... to "work around the US constitution"?

Thats what the left does best

The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

It does not say anything about the internet either...

And what does that have to do with this?

(10-23-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:09 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:00 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Thats what the left does best

The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

It does not say anything about the internet either...

And what does that have to do with this?

I knew there was a reason why I stopped responding to you

(10-23-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:09 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:00 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Thats what the left does best

The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

It does not say anything about the internet either...

And what does that have to do with this?

Because you said something stupid...

The text of the second amendment says -

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not say "guns" it says "arms" so if the word really mattered, and not the intent, then you could ban guns. The court's however have been wise enough to realize that arms meant guns and bullets.

(10-23-2015 11:22 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:09 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

It does not say anything about the internet either...

And what does that have to do with this?

Because you said something stupid...

The text of the second amendment says -

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not say "guns" it says "arms" so if the word really mattered, and not the intent, then you could ban guns. The court's however have been wise enough to realize that arms meant guns and bullets.

...a gatling equipped prosthetic, baseball bats, knives, bear traps, skinning hooks, etc.....whatever it takes to keep up with......

a personal nuclear weapon might be an issue

(10-23-2015 11:22 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:09 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 11:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The Constitution doesn't say anything about bullets so it's not a work around.

It does not say anything about the internet either...

And what does that have to do with this?

Because you said something stupid...

The text of the second amendment says -

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not say "guns" it says "arms" so if the word really mattered, and not the intent, then you could ban guns. The court's however have been wise enough to realize that arms meant guns and bullets.

If the constitution meant bullets then it wouldn't be a work around.