Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Should AR-15ís be legal to own?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, no restrictions.

    1 3.23%
  • Yes, severe restrictions.

    10 32.26%
  • No, why would someone need it?

    20 64.52%
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 182
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    72,896
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Lots of things save lives, that's an emotional argument. Banning cars saves lives. Yawn, what a way to start.



    Yes rifles are at the core of the 2nd Amendment's argument. You agree with me, you just disagree with the 2nd Amendment. You want zero guns for citizens and you're willing to obfuscate your goals all the way until you get there. Banning rifles will not reduce gun crime significantly, which isn't even that serious of a problem anyway. Your solution? Ban more stuff!



    It's not a serious problem though, which many are apt to point out about immigration/war when terrorist attacks occur. Most gun crime is criminals killing criminals, and gun homicides are only about 12,000 per year in a nation of 330+ million - many of which live in 3rd world conditions. In most peoples' opinions, criminals killing criminals is not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly not something to give up a constitutional right over.



    'Tinfoil hat, science denier, blah blah.' All I defend is the 2nd Amendment with the same arguments the founders used. And nobody would argue that our government is less tyrannical than either the early American federal government or the British empire under King George III. You've run out of epithets and nobody buys it.
    can I ask what your solution to lowering the amount of mass shootings is?

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,271
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Lots of things save lives, that's an emotional argument. Banning cars saves lives. Yawn, what a way to start.
    You're usually better than strawmen. I'm disapointed.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,246
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yes, but gun enthusiasts don't understand the concept of nuance because all of their arguments center on the idea of "there are only two options, ban something completely or have no restrictions whatsoever". It's really a concept introduced to children in what, 3rd grade and the gun lobby can't seem to master it.
    It's because many advocates argue in bad faith. Not all, but many, as you have. You've conceded gun control isn't about saving lives, it's just about 'winning.' Is it any wonder that both sides have their heels dug in?

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Banning cars would save lives, but you know what else would save lives while allowing cars? Regulations like seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, emissions tests, safety standards, etc. We do all of these for cars currently and you're equivalent argument is since we aren't banning cars completely, we shouldn't be doing any of those. What an argument.
    Yes and we have a lot of gun regulations already.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Second Bolded: Here you are, doing exactly what I said the gun lobby is doing. They have no actual counter the idea of restrictions so they continue with the erroneous assertion that everyone wants to take every gun away. Bottom line: I've said repeatedly you're wrong about that and I don't want to take everyone's guns. Hell, I own 2 guns. Every time you try this argument you show how desperately empty your position is and how quickly you have to resort to lying to try to get people on your side.
    Well you refuse to take a stance. You want to ban AR-15s, mostly just because of this recent shooting, but why? You won't say. High powered? Nope. Magazine capacity? Many guns have magazine capacities just as common as the 30 round for AR-15s, and in any case the Florida shooting was done with 10 round magazines. So it's not that either.

    Then what is it? It sounds like you want to ban semi-auto rifles, which are at the core of gun ownership in this country and would effectively outlaw most guns. Hell in other threads you even talk about gun confiscations as if that's desirable. Sort of evaporates your credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Third Bolded: You can say that all you want, I think the vast majority of people would agree mass shootings by themselves are a serious problem.
    They're not though, that's the point. The media prattles endlessly because the 'thinking class' in this country has decided America should be disarmed whether it takes 5 years or 2 generations. That doesn't mean it a 'serious issue.' Knives are a more serious issue - are we going to ban 'assault knives' like Great Britain? Maybe! After the guns!

    Again, you're likely one of the ones (rightly) pointing out that domestic terrorism incidences are a relatively rare occurrence. Why does that logic suddenly disappear now? If we want to talk about gun control it should start with illegal handguns because that is the vast majority of what is killing people.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Fourth Bolded: Well if you are such a strict adherer to what the founding fathers thought was right being the ultimate source of wisdom, I eagerly await your defense of the founding fathers arguments that people should be property. I assume that falls under your purview of freedom.
    No founding father ever said 'people should be property.' Is this just like some SJW talking point? Tear down those statues! The founding fathers were noticably silent on slavery, knowing how important it was to the young economy and therefore unfeasible ending it with a stroke of a pen would be but also not condoning it.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Everyone sees your arguments for what they are: Desperate platitudes of zero substance to distract from the actual nuance of the debate. Hiding behind "THEY WANT TO TAKE YER GUNS!" is pretty much the last vestige of the defeated in this argument, I suspect you know that, which is why you have merely resorted to shouting it louder.
    I support plenty of measures (procedural gun seizures for mental patients, high penalties for straw purchasers, etc.). This last mass shooting was a law enforcement failure, full stop. Sherriffs, FBI, school administrators - they all failed. It was totally preventable if we'd enforced current laws. Hold them accountable, not a gun.

    I'm not desperate for anything and I'm calling you out for shrouding your true motives, as a person who has had this conversation with you many times. You're not moderate, you're an extremist on one of the handful of issues I care about (individual liberties).

    I really don't worry about gun control extremists actually getting what they want - the nation will crumble into civil war way before that happens. I worry about citizens not understanding or caring about what their forefathers fought with their lives for and being so brainwashed that they'd willingly give that up without a fight. Western civilization is truly dead if enough people come to believe individual liberties no longer should exist. I don't begrudge Eastern societies for not valuing what Westerners do, but at the same time I do not want the whole world to be like China.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    can I ask what your solution to lowering the amount of mass shootings is?
    The enforcement is in place, I think we need to work on the roots of these ills. If it's not guns it will be cars running over people, improvised explosives, etc. Pretending our society will be fixed if we ban guns (or many guns) is stupidity - and we have proof all over the world of this.

    Brazil is very strict on gun ownership, and it is a very violent society. Probably more violent than any other non-failed state on the planet. Mexico too. We should look to these nations as our future. If we wake up one day and all the elites in the country send their children to private schools, hire armed guards, and live in gated communities right next to slums and tent cities we'll know we're well on our way to the blight and disfunction of Brazil. It's already begun.

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,271
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    The enforcement is in place, I think we need to work on the roots of these ills. If it's not guns it will be cars running over people, improvised explosives, etc. Pretending our society will be fixed if we ban guns (or many guns) is stupidity - and we have proof all over the world of this.
    My opinion is already stated and does not include banning any guns (just better regulations), but that said......we're talking about preventing or at least minimizing the damage of the next school shooting. That kid in Florida wasn't about to drive his car down the hallways of the school. Homemade explosives are even more challenging and less likely, but the bottom line is, even if FL just took the same Red Flag Laws as many other states, that kid would have been disarmed and dealt with.


    And there's also proof in other countries that gun bans will help if you go that route, but I think its crazy to use other countries as examples for us. We're a unique culture and a HUGE country. Guns are a cultural element at this point. Can't ban them outright, but to suggest we shouldn't keep military grade weapons out of the hands of civilians, enact and enforce strict rules on handguns, raise the age, regulate and license weapon holders, etc. is just ridiculous.

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,486
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    It's because many advocates argue in bad faith. Not all, but many, as you have. You've conceded gun control isn't about saving lives, it's just about 'winning.' Is it any wonder that both sides have their heels dug in?

    Yes and we have a lot of gun regulations already.

    Well you refuse to take a stance. You want to ban AR-15s, mostly just because of this recent shooting, but why? You won't say. High powered? Nope. Magazine capacity? Many guns have magazine capacities just as common as the 30 round for AR-15s, and in any case the Florida shooting was done with 10 round magazines. So it's not that either.

    Then what is it? It sounds like you want to ban semi-auto rifles, which are at the core of gun ownership in this country and would effectively outlaw most guns. Hell in other threads you even talk about gun confiscations as if that's desirable. Sort of evaporates your credibility.

    They're not though, that's the point. The media prattles endlessly because the 'thinking class' in this country has decided America should be disarmed whether it takes 5 years or 2 generations. That doesn't mean it a 'serious issue.' Knives are a more serious issue - are we going to ban 'assault knives' like Great Britain? Maybe! After the guns!

    Again, you're likely one of the ones (rightly) pointing out that domestic terrorism incidences are a relatively rare occurrence. Why does that logic suddenly disappear now? If we want to talk about gun control it should start with illegal handguns because that is the vast majority of what is killing people.

    No founding father ever said 'people should be property.' Is this just like some SJW talking point? Tear down those statues! The founding fathers were noticably silent on slavery, knowing how important it was to the young economy and therefore unfeasible ending it with a stroke of a pen would be but also not condoning it.

    I support plenty of measures (procedural gun seizures for mental patients, high penalties for straw purchasers, etc.). This last mass shooting was a law enforcement failure, full stop. Sherriffs, FBI, school administrators - they all failed. It was totally preventable if we'd enforced current laws. Hold them accountable, not a gun.

    I'm not desperate for anything and I'm calling you out for shrouding your true motives, as a person who has had this conversation with you many times. You're not moderate, you're an extremist on one of the handful of issues I care about (individual liberties).

    I really don't worry about gun control extremists actually getting what they want - the nation will crumble into civil war way before that happens. I worry about citizens not understanding or caring about what their forefathers fought with their lives for and being so brainwashed that they'd willingly give that up without a fight. Western civilization is truly dead if enough people come to believe individual liberties no longer should exist. I don't begrudge Eastern societies for not valuing what Westerners do, but at the same time I do not want the whole world to be like China.
    First Bolded: I have not. you have just lied about my position, which really erodes the credibility of your arguments. It is about saving lives, because the less guns are owned the less lives are lost. This is according to the data (which I know you will ignore, I'm most posting this for others reading):

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

    Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

    And that is just homicides. So if we decrease firearm ownership rates we will reduce the homicide rate. Yes, it is very much about saving lives.

    Second Bolded: Yes, it very much is, Gallup's polling shows the % as:

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

    60% want more strict gun laws
    33% want no change to current gun laws
    5% want less strict gun laws

    That's in 2018, but the % of those that want less strict laws hasn't gone above 14% in the history of the poll (going back to 1991) and the % that want more strict laws hasn't gone below 44% in the history of the poll.

    So you are very much wrong, the public overwhelmingly supports my position, not yours (I assume this is the point at which you say polls shouldn't be used, which again, I ask for any proof of your claims since I didn't get any proof last time I asked).

    Third Bolded: Again, you can say this all you want, nobody is going to believe you. Just to clarify, are you saying knives are a more serious issue than mass shootings?

    Fourth Bolded: Nice of you to say "I'm likely one of" and then lambast me for an opinion you think I have. You're not even trying now. As for your assertion we should be focusing on handguns, great! I would love to focus on handguns. But that's a non-starter with the gun lobby. And apparently so are rifles. And bump stocks. And giving the mentally ill weapons. See the pattern? Everything is a non-starter to gun enthusiasts.

    Fifth Bolded: Noticeably silent... except for owning slaves. I am assuming however that when you say Founding Fathers you mean only the handful most people know, certainly not ones like Patrick Henry or most of them from the South who did indeed advocate profusely for slavery.

    Sixth Bolded: I am no extremist on this issue, you are. You simply lie about my position. It's unfortunate, but not wholly unexpected from someone who is so deeply in the minority and so blatantly screams he's in the majority.

    In response to this I fully expect another basket of lies. I'm eager to see you tell me I want abolish all guns despite saying otherwise for the 10th time, much like Goebbels, you seem to subscribe to the idea that the more often you say something the truer it becomes. Fortunately, the rest of us don't.
    Last edited by valade16; 03-12-2018 at 06:53 PM.

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,246
    So take a position. I pointed out that you never pin down exactly what you believe, you just regurgitate stuff you copy/paste from gun control advocate websites. So what guns should people be allowed to own and under what circumstances?

    Anyway, PSD's premiere voice on this topic is now gone (slashsnake) and since you've gone from calling me Alex Jones to Goebbels for simply standing up for individual rights I think there's not much else to be gleaned here (except your ever-nebulous stance, of course!). I encourage anyone who cares what guys on PSD think to read the gun thread in the politics section - slashsnake actually took more time out of his day than I will to do good work.

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,486
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    So take a position. I pointed out that you never pin down exactly what you believe, you just regurgitate stuff you copy/paste from gun control advocate websites. So what guns should people be allowed to own and under what circumstances?

    Anyway, PSD's premiere voice on this topic is now gone (slashsnake) and since you've gone from calling me Alex Jones to Goebbels for simply standing up for individual rights I think there's not much else to be gleaned here (except your ever-nebulous stance, of course!). I encourage anyone who cares what guys on PSD think to read the gun thread in the politics section - slashsnake actually took more time out of his day than I will to do good work.
    I've taken a position and posted in many other threads what specifically we should do.

    Not allow the mentally ill to buy guns would be a good start. requiring a background check (or verification of previous background checks) for all purchases. Creating a database of firearm purchases that can track weapons and disclose who originally purchased a weapon found at a crime scene (this will greatly aid in finding straw purchasers), banning bump stocks, requiring a safety handlers course (and accompanying certificate) for purchasing firearms, requiring an annual/bi-annual/etc. (open to how often) certification that your still in good standing to own a firearm (perhaps a 5 or 10 year background check re-certification), allowing for the government to temporarily seize firearms for probable cause.

    And that's just off the top of my head.

    Slashsnake is indeed gone. But he was wrong in that thread (as I showed in the thread) and since that thread, all the research that has come out on the topic has affirmed that not only was he wrong, he was emphatically wrong.

    I also encourage everyone to read up on the data, read up on all the evidence we have on the subject. Particularly in the past 5-10 years as we've begun focusing on firearm research, because the data is clear.

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,246
    So why do you advocate banning AR-15s? Don't see that in your list. Also don't see about gun confiscations, which you think is on the table too.

    The data is not clear either, but we've been over this - it's entirely muddled by alternate causation. It's only clear if you pretend like America is mono-ethnic like Finland or Austria (and ignore Switzerland or Norway as outliers of course), and remove multiethnic nations out of the equation altogether like Brazil. In the mind of the gun control advocate (also known as a social scientist) this is 'controlling for socio-economic factors' but unfortunately the data is pretty clear when it comes to multiethnic societies too - it's just 'racist' to point this out.

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,486
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    So why do you advocate banning AR-15s? Don't see that in your list. Also don't see about gun confiscations, which you think is on the table too.

    The data is not clear either, but we've been over this - it's entirely muddled by alternate causation. It's only clear if you pretend like America is mono-ethnic like Finland or Austria (and ignore Switzerland or Norway as outliers of course), and remove multiethnic nations out of the equation altogether like Brazil. In the mind of the gun control advocate (also known as a social scientist) this is 'controlling for socio-economic factors' but unfortunately the data is pretty clear when it comes to multiethnic societies too - it's just 'racist' to point this out.
    Well I advocate for severe restrictions on who can own them, so it is a ban in that it would drastically reduce the number of people who can legally own them, but there are exceptions (much like machine gun laws, we don't have an actual ban in that no one can purchase them, only that it's very difficult to do so).

    And yes, the data is clear. The last time we went over this there have been a number of additional studies that have affirmed what I've been saying, and they even account (as much as possible) for alternate causations.

    Heck, even the study I just posted factored in those variables:

    We examined the relationship between gun ownership and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during the 30-year period 1981 through 2010, with adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate, and suicide rate. To the best of our knowledge, this was the most comprehensive study to date, both in number of years in the analysis and breadth of control variables.

    Bottom line, even in racially homogenized neighborhoods there was still a correlation between firearm ownership and homicides (just as their is for suicides and accidental gun deaths). You're trying to argue there's more gun violence in black neighborhoods, I'm not disagreeing. But there's also more gun violence in white neighborhoods with more guns than there is in white neighborhoods without guns.


    The data is clear. I mean, it's pretty common sense the data isn't on their side when the gun lobbyists (NRA) actively try to block research into the topic. Never a good sign when you don't want to actually see what the research says.

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,246
    Nobody would doubt that gun ownership has some correlation with homicide. It's the most efficient and readily available tool for death. The same is true for knives, prescription pills, etc. but we don't get corporate funding to study the deleterious aspects of prescription drugs in this country - which, not coincidentally, do seem to have a strong correlation with these media-sensationalized mass shooters. IE they're all on heavy drugs.

    The narrow set of data has nothing to say about high ownership nations with low crime, low ownership nations with absurd crime (Brazil), or the fact that gun ownership has drastically increased in the last 40 years in this country while the homicide rate has decreased precipitously. Again, 'data' does not have an opinion. It answers a specific question asked. Nobody has ever said life comes without sacrifices.

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,486
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    Nobody would doubt that gun ownership has some correlation with homicide. It's the most efficient and readily available tool for death. The same is true for knives, prescription pills, etc. but we don't get corporate funding to study the deleterious aspects of prescription drugs in this country - which, not coincidentally, do seem to have a strong correlation with these media-sensationalized mass shooters. IE they're all on heavy drugs.

    The narrow set of data has nothing to say about high ownership nations with low crime, low ownership nations with absurd crime (Brazil), or the fact that gun ownership has drastically increased in the last 40 years in this country while the homicide rate has decreased precipitously. Again, 'data' does not have an opinion. It answers a specific question asked. Nobody has ever said life comes without sacrifices.
    We're talking about government funding not corporate, which there is way more funding towards studying the effects of prescription drugs than there is studying the effects of gun ownership. Even trying to insinuate that we're in some way ignoring prescription drugs to focus on gun issues is absurd, the President declared Opioids a public health crisis.

    It is kind of amusing that anytime I used a study from other nations the refrain was "you can't compare us to other nations, we're different" and now when I use data from the US it's "you can't use data from the US, you must use data from other countries".

    I would also point out you are factually incorrect when you say "gun ownership has drastically increased in the last 40 years", no it hasn't. The number of guns has drastically increased, but the % of people who own guns is dropping:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b3430d9cf579

    American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years

    (Here is another one that shows 30% own guns but 42% live in a house with guns)

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/...hip-with-guns/

    So it seems you've actually reinforced my point: as the % of households with guns drops, so too does the homicide rate (though with the homicide rates of the past 40 years, there are obviously a number of factors that impact it beyond solely firearm rates).

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,246
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    We're talking about government funding not corporate, which there is way more funding towards studying the effects of prescription drugs than there is studying the effects of gun ownership. Even trying to insinuate that we're in some way ignoring prescription drugs to focus on gun issues is absurd, the President declared Opioids a public health crisis.

    It is kind of amusing that anytime I used a study from other nations the refrain was "you can't compare us to other nations, we're different" and now when I use data from the US it's "you can't use data from the US, you must use data from other countries".

    I would also point out you are factually incorrect when you say "gun ownership has drastically increased in the last 40 years", no it hasn't. The number of guns has drastically increased, but the % of people who own guns is dropping:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b3430d9cf579

    American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years

    (Here is another one that shows 30% own guns but 42% live in a house with guns)

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/...hip-with-guns/

    So it seems you've actually reinforced my point: as the % of households with guns drops, so too does the homicide rate (though with the homicide rates of the past 40 years, there are obviously a number of factors that impact it beyond solely firearm rates).
    There are so many problems, starting with studying at the state level, on this study. If the argument is that homicide rates increase with guns nobody would deny that. Homicide rates would increase with cars, knives, ropes, poisons, etc. Also I doubt gun ownership includes illegal guns, which are the vast majority of gun crimes.

    But again, I'm not interested in parsing this crap with - I have neither the time nor inclination. I'd refer any impartial readers to the gun thread if they care, but since this is a dead forum I doubt they do.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,486
    Quote Originally Posted by flea View Post
    There are so many problems, starting with studying at the state level, on this study. If the argument is that homicide rates increase with guns nobody would deny that. Homicide rates would increase with cars, knives, ropes, poisons, etc. Also I doubt gun ownership includes illegal guns, which are the vast majority of gun crimes.

    But again, I'm not interested in parsing this crap with - I have neither the time nor inclination. I'd refer any impartial readers to the gun thread if they care, but since this is a dead forum I doubt they do.
    This is another deflection term from gun enthusiasts. The overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" were manufactured by major manufacturers and sold legally. The guns aren't illegal, they are legally manufactured guns that are illegally sold by straw purchasers. You make it sound like someone is whittling their guns at home or smuggling them in from Venezuela.

    If we had a national database that tracked guns to actually stop straw purchasers, we'd greatly reduce gun crimes. Something tells me you're against that though.

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,246
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    This is another deflection term from gun enthusiasts. The overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" were manufactured by major manufacturers and sold legally. The guns aren't illegal, they are legally manufactured guns that are illegally sold by straw purchasers. You make it sound like someone is whittling their guns at home or smuggling them in from Venezuela.

    If we had a national database that tracked guns to actually stop straw purchasers, we'd greatly reduce gun crimes. Something tells me you're against that though.
    Totally, and for one main reason: because there is recent history showing that anytime there is civil unrest the government uses its national database to confiscate arms before the violence starts (see: Yugoslav wars in the 90s). That entirely defeats the point of the 2nd Amendment. I'm also against it for reasons of privacy - we've seen how activist groups like to publish lists of CC holders in papers to encourage robbery against them. With how our 4th Amendment rights are now I see no reason to cede more control of privacy.

    I am, however, very much for increased penalties against illegal arms dealers and illegal gun possession crimes. That will never happen though because though for the same reason we'll never increase penalties in this country for insider trading or any other crime likely to affect the elites. The US is the largest arms dealer in the world, and it's not because of the 2nd Amendment. I think it's utterly criminal and treasonous, for example, that our government has used taxpayer dollars to arm Islamic radicals in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere as well as drug cartels in Mexico. Basically every thinking American agrees with me - anyone here think they'll be held accountable?

    Why is it the position of the US federal government that major drug dealers and international terrorists should be given military-grade weapons but law-abiding citizens should not even have the standard issue musket of our times?

    Like I said though, the best part of the 2nd Amendment is that it's self-enforcing. That is the one, and only, reason we haven't and won't have gun confiscations unless and until there is widespread public support for it. Sort of makes you understand the nonstop propagandizing cynically aimed at and utilizing the youth.
    Last edited by flea; 03-20-2018 at 06:22 PM.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •