(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:15 AM)b2b Wrote:  Make no mistake. They're glad this happened to Christians.

I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:15 AM)b2b Wrote:  Make no mistake. They're glad this happened to Christians.

I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

They’re not; it’s just the gleeful overexuberance of them finding out this person was trans.

This issue doesn’t change, and is no more or less horrific whether a shooter is trans, straight, white, black, conservative or liberal, atheist or christian.

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:15 AM)b2b Wrote:  Make no mistake. They're glad this happened to Christians.

I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

Then let’s do the same for voting

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:15 AM)b2b Wrote:  Make no mistake. They're glad this happened to Christians.

I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

not at all. devalued life is completely equivalent

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

What about the fetus that's far enough along that can survive outside the womb? It's not a conflation but rather a stark example of the left's hypocrisy and selective outrage.

(03-28-2023 12:26 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:15 AM)b2b Wrote:  Make no mistake. They're glad this happened to Christians.

I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

They’re not; it’s just the gleeful overexuberance of them finding out this person was trans.

This issue doesn’t change, and is no more or less horrific whether a shooter is trans, straight, white, black, conservative or liberal, atheist or christian.

The shooter was mentally ill, that's all that matters. Not their race, creed, or religious leaning. Typical leftist aren't you? Everything is about race and religion to you people. Racist bigots all of you.

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

The funny thing about guns is you hope to never use them if you are sane, but when you need one the necessity is immediate. So, the law negates the reason for ownership. And unfortunately only the honest, responsible, law abiding citizens are impinged by its observance. The criminal will have a weapon, it will not have a trigger lock, it will not be boxed, the magazine will not be stored separately, and it will be pointed at you.

No gun in a safe will protect you during a home invasion, nor is it safe from the criminals who will have a gun at your head, or your child's, or your spouse's forcing you to use the combination to open the safe so that both valuables and firearms may be stolen.

Common sense says if you can't have a gun immediately available for defense, then you have no need to own one. And this is where the disingenuous nature of the left rears its ugly head and is exposed. They want all people to be subservient to the only people who have arms, law enforcement and criminals. That makes everyone compliant with their tyranny and BS.

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

So they're better off dead? You people are sick in the head. Btw, a 9 month old can't survive outside the womb without help. A good friend of mine just had a child at 23 weeks.

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

How about trans people who cant survive without being called their preferred pronouns?

How about people who cant survive without assistance from others (like when they get it from the government.)

There's a lot of people who cant survive on their own. For some reason you think babies are an easy target.

(03-28-2023 12:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

What about the fetus that's far enough along that can survive outside the womb? It's not a conflation but rather a stark example of the left's hypocrisy and selective outrage.

It seems to me that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.

-Ronald Reagan

(03-28-2023 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

The funny thing about guns is you hope to never use them if you are sane, but when you need one the necessity is immediate. So, the law negates the reason for ownership. And unfortunately only the honest, responsible, law abiding citizens are impinged by its observance. The criminal will have a weapon, it will not have a trigger lock, it will not be boxed, the magazine will not be stored separately, and it will be pointed at you.

No gun in a safe will protect you during a home invasion, nor is it safe from the criminals who will have a gun at your head, or your child's, or your spouse's forcing you to use the combination to open the safe so that both valuables and firearms may be stolen.

Common sense says if you can't have a gun immediately available for defense, then you have no need to own one. And this is where the disingenuous nature of the left rears its ugly head and is exposed. They want all people to be subservient to the only people who have arms, law enforcement and criminals. That makes everyone compliant with their tyranny and BS.

yeah. well said. frick all that. these are not serious people. they watch too much tv where the gun is in a box, with a trigger lock and the person being attacked calmly walks over and then has it ready for use.

that aint real life. ive had a gun pulled on me twice and they didnt give a shite about boxes,cables and trigger locks. the people advocating this stuff dont live in the real world.

im not going to suffer fools on this topic.

(03-28-2023 12:37 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

What about the fetus that's far enough along that can survive outside the womb? It's not a conflation but rather a stark example of the left's hypocrisy and selective outrage.

It seems to me that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.

-Ronald Reagan

Yep.

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

Any requirement like you are envisioning is a defacto tax. You can have a gun, but, you have to have to buy a lock box, a trigger lock, a car safe, and so on. It's just another tax, and if you pass that kind of law, you can bet your ass the spouses of Democratic lawmakers will own the companies selling the "approved" devices.

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 10:15 AM)b2b Wrote:  Make no mistake. They're glad this happened to Christians.

I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

Killing children is killing children.

They love it so much they even SHOUT their abortion!

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

Tell that to the Supreme Court. The "inconvenience" of a trigger lock, some other storage lock, or disassembly renders the firearm useless and does in fact infringe upon the second amendment.

I'm not saying taking reasonable precautions is a bad idea. My firearms are either out of reach of littles or concealed where only I can reach them.

You cannot infringe upon a law-abiding citizen's second amendment right for any reason, least of which should be the criminal acts of others.

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

And requiring people to build garages to lock their vehicles in doesn't infringe on their right to own cars.

What's the difference from someone breaking into your home and breaking into your car?

(03-28-2023 12:29 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:25 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:20 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  I cannot believe they would be happy that innocent children were killed.

You've obviously never heard of abortion.

False equivalency.

How so? Both instances involve innocent lives.

That’s just your opinion that a fetus that can’t survive outside the womb is a life unto itself. Stop conflating the two issues.

A newborn can't survive outside the womb, either. The child forces the woman to do things with her body such as lactate, feed, clean poop, etc.

(03-28-2023 12:52 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:23 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 12:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2023 09:41 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I haven't proposed anything that infringes on the second amendment. Nothing about a gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun.

The second amendment is perhaps the most clearly and concisely written. When you understand the common use and meaning of words when it was written it is 100% crystal clear. The govt has no say in ownership of firearms by private citizens. Over the last 200 years that notion has been discarded on countless occasions, each more restrictive then before.

My opinion aside, the Supreme Court ruled that DC's requirements for weapons to be disassembled or bound with a trigger lock to be a violation of the second amendment. As usual, you are 100% incorrect that "nothing about gun storage law infringes on your right to buy or own a gun."

A lot of people on here seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between inconvenience and infringement.

Requiring gun owners to do a little more to protect guns they are choosing to own is not infringement on their right to own it.

Tell that to the Supreme Court. The "inconvenience" of a trigger lock, some other storage lock, or disassembly renders the firearm useless and does in fact infringe upon the second amendment.

I'm not saying taking reasonable precautions is a bad idea. My firearms are either out of reach of littles or concealed where only I can reach them.

You cannot infringe upon a law-abiding citizen's second amendment right for any reason, least of which should be the criminal acts of others.

you cannot legislate common sense. idiots are going to be idiots.

the funny thing is that once again the filth have made this about the gun not the shooter.

but but but they dont want your guns.

remember, they lie.

by any means necessary is their slogan.

(03-28-2023 12:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  What about the fetus that's far enough along that can survive outside the womb? It's not a conflation but rather a stark example of the left's hypocrisy and selective outrage.

Very few are aborted at that point. I don't think abortion should be a version of birth control, but there are plenty of scenarios where it should be an option. Again, it is a false equivalency.