Log In Forums Help
Comic Collector Live
Home :: CCL Messageboard
Find Comics for Sale
Items For Sale
All Comics For Sale
New Releases
CGC Comics
Bundled Lots
Store Locator
Search Library
Search By Title
Publisher
Story Arc
Character
Credits
Release Date
Change Request Manager
News & Reviews
Reviews
News
Our Products and Services
Get the Software
Buying Comics And Stuff
Selling Your Comics
Opening A Store
Community
Forum
Store Locator
Member Locator
Welcome Guest Active Topics
Poll Question: Should the CT Shootings Call for Gun Control?
Choice Votes Statistics
Yes! 17 36%
No! 26 56%
I'm not sure yet. 3 6%

Newtown CT Shooting: Should there be more gun control? Options
freakdylan
Posted: Friday, December 21, 2012 7:56:19 PM

Rank: Watcher
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/4/2012
Posts: 893
Points: 6,163
comicuniversity wrote:


Do you know why the second amendment was written? I bet not.


Yes do you? Or are you just questioning my intelligence now?

Look you have your opinion and I have mine, and currently mine is right since we do have the right to bear arms. If you want to change that then I suggest you vote to change the law. Then if that ever happens I will guarantee 100% people will still kill each other,
Then we will ban knives
then anything sharp
then heavy objects
then all objects not made of soft foam
then foam

Then we will put infants in huge kevlar bubbles to live out there lives in comfort, safe from anyone and anything. Since it was those damned guns that killed all those people not the guy pulling the trigger.


Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

ComicCastle
TreeHouse
Hall Of Heroes
Thundercron's Longbox
DrumCzar


Now for the sellers helping me finish my TMNT collection:

Hall Of Heroes
Green Bay Comics



comicuniversity
Posted: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:03:47 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
freakdylan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:


Do you know why the second amendment was written? I bet not.


Yes do you? Or are you just questioning my intelligence now?

Look you have your opinion and I have mine, and currently mine is right since we do have the right to bear arms. If you want to change that then I suggest you vote to change the law. Then if that ever happens I will guarantee 100% people will still kill each other,
Then we will ban knives
then anything sharp
then heavy objects
then all objects not made of soft foam
then foam

Then we will put infants in huge kevlar bubbles to live out there lives in comfort, safe from anyone and anything. Since it was those damned guns that killed all those people not the guy pulling the trigger.



LOL. I am certainly not questioning your intelligence. I don't even know you. Just because I disagree with you on this topic doesn't make either of us dumb or smart...just different.


I questioned whether you knew it or not, because, anyone who knows the actual reason we have the second amendment in the first pace knows it's sorely outdated and no longer applicable. Plus, really, most people don't actually know what amendments say. I didn't even know exactly what the thing said until this argument started, so I looked it up just so I didn't formulate an argument based on information I believed that might have turned out wrong (you know...the exact opposite of what talk radio hosts and certain biased "news" sources do)



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



That's it as it actually appears in our constitution. That doesn't apply to, I'd guess, about 99% of the guns that are actually currently legally owned in this country. The only guns this applies to are the ones owned by the real whackjobs who hole up in compounds preparing for the latest conspiracy.




Know what I mean? Unless you are in a militia protecting us froma despot or dictator then the second amendment doesn't apply to you.


and...as for the bolded passage.....just cause it's in law doesn't make it right. For example, most of the people defending gun rights are also against abortion. That's legal. Would you still say it's right?
4saken1
Posted: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:59:24 PM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 8/13/2007
Posts: 2,484
Points: 10,317
freakdylan wrote:
Then if that ever happens I will guarantee 100% people will still kill each other,
Then we will ban knives
then anything sharp
then heavy objects
then all objects not made of soft foam
then foam

Then we will put infants in huge kevlar bubbles to live out there lives in comfort, safe from anyone and anything. Since it was those damned guns that killed all those people not the guy pulling the trigger.


Really? As stated, ad nausium, in previous posts - other industrialized countries with tighter gun restrictions have a fraction (as in not even close) of our homicide rate, and I don't hear them calling for these ridiculous measures. You see what you want to see because the truth doesn't fit in with your political beliefs.

I totally agree, though! The only way anything meaningful is going to happen is if we change the Constitution itself - and that aint gonna happen until gun owners look at the facts and stop these extreme rationalizations. The only other way I see anything meaningful happening is if the Supreme Court changes it's interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment back to what it was originally supposed to mean.

ComicVortex

Current specials:

Get 30% Off Select Comics
For every comic you purchase from our 'Bargain Bin' (those priced $1 or less), another comic purchased over $1 will be $30% off (refunded via PayPal). eg. If you purchase 10 'Bargain Bin' books, then 10 books purchased that are each over $1 will recieve this refund, etc.

Free Shipping

Every domestic order of 25 or more comics gets FREE SHIPPING (Media Mail). Though I can't provide Free Shipping on foreign orders, we do offer a $5 refund on postage for purchases of 25 or more comics to foreign countries or a $10 refund if you buy 50 comics (again, foreign orders only).

monidaw1
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:26:08 AM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 12/4/2009
Posts: 1,399
Points: 33,304
Location: Crewe, VA
Quote:
that aint gonna happen until gun owners look at the facts and stop these extreme rationalizations.


Extreme rationalizations are the norm, take the NRA's SHOCKING new official stance on the VA Tech Massacre this morning. They want MORE of their PRODUCT in the schools to defend our children from people using their PRODUCT and the justification for having the kids always surrounded by guns and us taxpayers footing the bill is other agencies like Presedents and judges use their PRODUCT to defend themselves from people using their PRODUCT. They also officially now think maybe there's a little too much violence in other peoples products. That's called playing the blame game. Take absolutely no responsibility and try to point your attention elsewhere. You'd think they'd have at least offered to support new tax laws on their industry as a whole to pay for all these new armed guards. Tobacoo gets a new tax every time you turn around to foot the cost of use of their product on the general populations budget. Sick

Quote:
I totally agree, though! The only way anything meaningful is going to happen is if we change the Constitution itself


Naw, tax the bullets, no Constitutional anything needed. $100 a bullet user tax. Ban the bullets outright. Nowhere in the Constitution guarantee's a right to the worst types of bullets.

Bamf!!! Photobucket Pages

ukblueky
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:34:00 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2007
Posts: 4,201
Points: 12,603
Location: Kentucky
4saken1 wrote:
b0bafett wrote:
As for the UK I guess you don't remember the Hungerford massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996 but nothing there is less gun owership so those massacres don't mean anything.


This is called anecdotal evidence, wherein one finds a single incident that supports their claim and ignore all other evidence. Fact: The U.S. has nearly 4x the murder rate of England! In all of Europe, no countries even come close to our murder rate and there is a direct corrolation between the number of guns available over there. Some people just don't want to see it because these facts interfere with what they want to believe!


Your part right but the UK had lower muder rates even when they didnt have a ban on guns.I already posted this earlier in this thread but it was misunderstood.
Look I'm not here to defend anyones right to own guns.All I'm trying to do is put up a logical, rational debate.So far from some of the things I have read and heard tighter gun laws dont necessarily mean lower murder rates.So the million dollar question is "how do we lower murder rates?"

ukblueky
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 9:28:16 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2007
Posts: 4,201
Points: 12,603
Location: Kentucky
Heres something else to chew on.Maybe this matter is entirely a different beast maybe its not.Recently here in KY the KASPER law has went into effect.What this law does is in a nutshell put severe restrictions on doctors from writing prescriptions for narcotic medication.Has this law made it harder for people to abuse prescription pills, yes.Has it cut down on over doses and new pill junkies, I honestly cant say.I dont think it has really put a dent in the pill drug use here.You still hear of a young person dying from a pill over dose rather frequently.What it has done though is drive up the price drastically.Which an argument can easily be made that theft rates has gone up because of this.The pill abusers still find their pills.They just have to use different channels now or pay more money.The Florida pill pipeline still runs wide open and alot of people use it to obtain pills.I guess what I'm trying to say is tough restrictions have been placed on a product but it hasnt really stopped or even slowed it.Infact it has had some negative side effects.
We can also take a look at the meth problem of KY.They tried to cut into the production of meth and possibly cut into the street selling of it.To do this restrictions were put on buying over the counter cold and allergy medicine (Sudafed, etc).You can only purchase a set amount of this product and when you purchase it your name is put in a database that the police have access to.Has this stopped or slowed meth use? Nope, not in the least.The meth makers just started using different recipes.
These are just two examples of well meaning people trying to fix a problem they truly dont understand by using the most conveinent method available, restrictions.
Like I mentioned earlier maybe these two matters are entirely different beasts.Maybe what didnt work for one would work for the other.

4saken1
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 9:35:45 AM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 8/13/2007
Posts: 2,484
Points: 10,317
ukblueky wrote:
Your part right but the UK had lower muder rates even when they didnt have a ban on guns.I already posted this earlier in this thread but it was misunderstood.
Look I'm not here to defend anyones right to own guns.All I'm trying to do is put up a logical, rational debate.So far from some of the things I have read and heard tighter gun laws dont necessarily mean lower murder rates.So the million dollar question is "how do we lower murder rates?"


Thank you for clarifying that, ukblueky! You are partially right about England's murder rate. In the few years following the ban, their murder rate actually went up. I have a few ideas about why this was, and I'm sure others have theirs, too. In actuality, though, murders in the U.K. have been dropping ever since '03, and are currently at a 30 year low.

ComicVortex

Current specials:

Get 30% Off Select Comics
For every comic you purchase from our 'Bargain Bin' (those priced $1 or less), another comic purchased over $1 will be $30% off (refunded via PayPal). eg. If you purchase 10 'Bargain Bin' books, then 10 books purchased that are each over $1 will recieve this refund, etc.

Free Shipping

Every domestic order of 25 or more comics gets FREE SHIPPING (Media Mail). Though I can't provide Free Shipping on foreign orders, we do offer a $5 refund on postage for purchases of 25 or more comics to foreign countries or a $10 refund if you buy 50 comics (again, foreign orders only).

ukblueky
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 9:59:11 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2007
Posts: 4,201
Points: 12,603
Location: Kentucky
4saken1 wrote:
ukblueky wrote:
Your part right but the UK had lower muder rates even when they didnt have a ban on guns.I already posted this earlier in this thread but it was misunderstood.
Look I'm not here to defend anyones right to own guns.All I'm trying to do is put up a logical, rational debate.So far from some of the things I have read and heard tighter gun laws dont necessarily mean lower murder rates.So the million dollar question is "how do we lower murder rates?"


Thank you for clarifying that, ukblueky! You are partially right about England's murder rate. In the few years following the ban, their murder rate actually went up. I have a few ideas about why this was, and I'm sure others have theirs, too. In actuality, though, murders in the U.K. have been dropping ever since '03, and are currently at a 30 year low.


This is what I've been trying to talk about.There is no evidence to show a direct correlation between bans and decreased murder rates.In the case you brought up UK's rate went up after the ban was placed but has since came down.
It is my belief that until we can understand what posseses people to commit this acts we will never get a handle on fixing the problem.Its like slapping a band aid on a tumor and saying "see everything is better."


comicuniversity
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 9:59:53 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Several people have attempted to link drugs laws to gun laws, saying stricter drug laws havent done much good.

Ignoring the basic difference of course.....that drugs are physically addictive. You would have to have a generation of stricter drug laws before you saw much difference, because it would take that long for all the addicts to either move through the system or die.

Guns aren't physically addictive.
SuperSoldier124
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:29:01 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/3/2007
Posts: 2,948
Points: 8,905
Location: Falcon, Colorado
no but there fun to shoot. shooting competitions are awesome. its more expensive than drugs.

add me on xbox live and PSN

PS3: wartorn11b
360: precious blood1

ukblueky
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:03:23 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/7/2007
Posts: 4,201
Points: 12,603
Location: Kentucky
comicuniversity wrote:
Several people have attempted to link drugs laws to gun laws, saying stricter drug laws havent done much good.

Ignoring the basic difference of course.....that drugs are physically addictive. You would have to have a generation of stricter drug laws before you saw much difference, because it would take that long for all the addicts to either move through the system or die.

Guns aren't physically addictive.


Its not linking the two.All I'm trying to do is bring up examples of other types of regulations for scourges of society that havent had the desired effects that people thought they would.I've been plainly open that the two maybe two entirely different matters.

freakdylan
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:45:22 PM

Rank: Watcher
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/4/2012
Posts: 893
Points: 6,163
comicuniversity wrote:



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



That's it as it actually appears in our constitution. That doesn't apply to, I'd guess, about 99% of the guns that are actually currently legally owned in this country. The only guns this applies to are the ones owned by the real whackjobs who hole up in compounds preparing for the latest conspiracy.




Know what I mean? Unless you are in a militia protecting us froma despot or dictator then the second amendment doesn't apply to you.


Actually in 2010 the Supreme Court stated:

Quote:
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


So they pretty much got rid of that whole militia thing, which was way too old to be relevant unless you live in the sticks. lol


Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

ComicCastle
TreeHouse
Hall Of Heroes
Thundercron's Longbox
DrumCzar


Now for the sellers helping me finish my TMNT collection:

Hall Of Heroes
Green Bay Comics



comicuniversity
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 1:39:08 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
freakdylan wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:



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



That's it as it actually appears in our constitution. That doesn't apply to, I'd guess, about 99% of the guns that are actually currently legally owned in this country. The only guns this applies to are the ones owned by the real whackjobs who hole up in compounds preparing for the latest conspiracy.




Know what I mean? Unless you are in a militia protecting us froma despot or dictator then the second amendment doesn't apply to you.


Actually in 2010 the Supreme Court stated:

Quote:
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


So they pretty much got rid of that whole militia thing, which was way too old to be relevant unless you live in the sticks. lol



Please tell me 2 things:

1) You understand that an individual interpretation by a specific iteration of the supreme court based on one case isn't the same as an amendment. I mean, you get that the supreme court can't "get rid" of amendments, right?

2) You also understand that your original argument stated the 2nd amendment. In fact, I believe you stated the second amendment as a REASON for owning guns quite forcefully.
Now, you're changing your tune.


At any rate, just because people have a right to do something doesn't mean they have a reason to do it or should do it. Those are two very fundamentally different things that i think the gun rights advocates can't quite wrap their heads around.



For instance, Women have a right to get an abortion. Doesnt mean they should.

or, how 'bout this one?

I have a right to hang a giant sign of Osama Bin Laden in my front yard with the words "I hate America on it". But i sure don't have a reason to.


Or,
I have a right to own a friggin' bushmaster assault rifle. But I neither should, nor do I have a reason to. Same could be said of every single citizen of the united States of America, with the possible exception of Law enforcement and military....only when they are on duty.
comicuniversity
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 1:43:18 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
ukblueky wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Several people have attempted to link drugs laws to gun laws, saying stricter drug laws havent done much good.

Ignoring the basic difference of course.....that drugs are physically addictive. You would have to have a generation of stricter drug laws before you saw much difference, because it would take that long for all the addicts to either move through the system or die.

Guns aren't physically addictive.


Its not linking the two.All I'm trying to do is bring up examples of other types of regulations for scourges of society that havent had the desired effects that people thought they would.I've been plainly open that the two maybe two entirely different matters.



Unfortunately, UK, not everyone is as rational as you. You and I both know that there aer people who refuse to think deeper than surface comments and taglines that sound good because they support their own opinions. You know that there are people that are going to seize on the drug thing as a real fact to justify arguing againts gun restrictions.
4saken1
Posted: Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:01:22 AM

Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 8/13/2007
Posts: 2,484
Points: 10,317
ukblueky wrote:
This is what I've been trying to talk about.There is no evidence to show a direct correlation between bans and decreased murder rates.In the case you brought up UK's rate went up after the ban was placed but has since came down.


Cause and effect, especially on this scale, often do not happen one right after the other. Sometimes it takes years for legislation to bear fruition. Even if Congress were to pass the most sound fiscal plan imaginable, you wouldn't expect the national debt to disappear tomorrow, would you? Why would it be any different for gun control?

It seems quite simple to me! I imagine just previous to the ban taking effect in England, gun sales probably went through the roof because they would no longer be available for purchase. Because of this, there was undoubtedly a bunch more illegal firearms floating around - hence the rise in murders. In more recent years, it's gotten harder and harder to find guns, so murder rates have gone down. I imagine we would have similar results here: a spike in crime during the years just after legislation was passed, but an overall decrease after that.

ComicVortex

Current specials:

Get 30% Off Select Comics
For every comic you purchase from our 'Bargain Bin' (those priced $1 or less), another comic purchased over $1 will be $30% off (refunded via PayPal). eg. If you purchase 10 'Bargain Bin' books, then 10 books purchased that are each over $1 will recieve this refund, etc.

Free Shipping

Every domestic order of 25 or more comics gets FREE SHIPPING (Media Mail). Though I can't provide Free Shipping on foreign orders, we do offer a $5 refund on postage for purchases of 25 or more comics to foreign countries or a $10 refund if you buy 50 comics (again, foreign orders only).

Jim
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2012 11:18:38 PM

Rank: CCL Mobile App Dev
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/16/2007
Posts: 10,419
Points: 10,096,227
Location: Everett, WA
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.

CCL Android app
CCL Android Free app
CCL Windows Phone app
comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:00:25 AM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Jim wrote:
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.



The connecticut shooting is the stupid level of extreme. Doesn't EVERYBODY see that?

kidlippy
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:23:10 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Member, Subscriber

Joined: 5/12/2007
Posts: 3,571
Points: 45,437
Location: Peg City
Guns shouldn't be banned, just controlled. Why should everyone have the right to own a weapon even if they're mentally ill (as recent events are being said). Banning weapons isn't the answer. To anyone who thinks this is possible needs to give their heads a shake.
I find it stupid that you can go to a Walmart and pick up a 6 pack of beer and a rifle at the same time. This is scary. Something is plain wrong there.
Those guns used to kill 20 children and 6 adults were all registered by the killer's mother. How can someone not think that guns need to be controlled better?


http://www.myspace.com/kidlippy


Jim
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:07:09 PM

Rank: CCL Mobile App Dev
Groups: Member

Joined: 6/16/2007
Posts: 10,419
Points: 10,096,227
Location: Everett, WA
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.



The connecticut shooting is the stupid level of extreme. Doesn't EVERYBODY see that?



I don't understand your point.

CCL Android app
CCL Android Free app
CCL Windows Phone app
comicuniversity
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 12:16:45 PM
Rank: Herald of Galactus
Groups: Member, Moderator

Joined: 4/18/2012
Posts: 1,276
Points: 4,603
Jim wrote:
comicuniversity wrote:
Jim wrote:
Here is an incident where a felon had weapons and used them in a trap set for fire fighters.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-shoots-firefighters-kills-trap-webster-ny-blaze/story?id=18055594

If guns are banned in the U.S. then they need to be banned 100%. No one has them, not even police. If they are banned then it should be an all or nothing deal and the only ones with them are the military who may only use them when on active duty.

I don't see any gray area here. If they remain available then it just means that one way or another criminals will get them (e.g. Fast and Furious). The only control would be the federal government controlling weapon production for the military.

It's a stupid level of extreme but I just don't believe that anything less will help much if at all. So, no, I don't think the CT shooting should call for gun control. CT was tragic but I think the focus should be on the shooter and his family and not the tools used to commit the crime.



The connecticut shooting is the stupid level of extreme. Doesn't EVERYBODY see that?



I don't understand your point.




I just....it's (banned)ing ridiculous.

20 (banned)ing little kids are dead (plus teachers and staff) because it was RIDICULOUSLY easy for this idiot to get ahold of guns that made it RIDICULOUSLY easy for him to rack up a RIDICULOUS body count.


and it is (banned)ing RIDICULOUS that there are people who think the answer is MORE GUNS!!

And, people, ridiculously, want to argue that restricting gun sales and access to guns would do nothing. That is an argument that is ridiculous given what just happened.

These facts CANNOT be disputed unless one is being ridiculous:
1) Any weapon less powerful than the bushmaster and this Lanza kid couldnt have killed as many as he did.
2) A socially awkward, autistic person like Lanza could not have accessed illegal weapons.

so...unless you're being ridiculous, you know that if these types of weapons were illegal....or at least heavily restricted.....there wouldnt be 20 dead kids.


That's my (banned)ing point. And I feel RIDICULOUS having to say something so (banned)ing obvious over and over again.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

This page was generated in 0.875 seconds.

ADVERTISEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All images on comic collector live copyright of their respective publishers. © Copyright 2008, MidTen Media Inc. GOLO241