There’s also the fact it’s a political football, and the loudest advocates on both sides are actively hamstringing solutions by taking every moderate idea proposed and either shitting on it or trying to use it as an excuse to drag the rules further their way. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a tug of war on a slip-n-slide.
Who said that? Nothing said to this point could make you draw that conclusion.
Of course, even noting that the trend in the liberalization of gun laws, the increase in gun ownership, and the continuing implementation of “shall issue” carry laws has coincided with a considerable reduction in crime isn’t the same as “proof”, what with correlation not being the same as causation. Still, it’s enough to indicate to me that at worst liberalized gun laws are neutral, they certainly haven’t made things any worse.
If you want reasoned discussion, try being reasonable. All rhetoric does is cause people to solidify their positions.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, actually.
Sure it does
And we’re officially off in the weeds, ladies and gentlemen.
Cheesesteak was obviously just making a joke in a thread which has not lacked for those. If we ran off into the weeds, it was with Czarcasm and PlainJane talking irrelevantly (but with the appearance of having a point) about fireworks and hunting.
I’d be more confident of that if the same argument hadn’t been made seriously in every gun thread on this board ever.
I think the assclown should have the entire book thrown at him. Aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc, etc, etc, the whole nine yards.
If you’re genuinely interested in advancing the conversation, your last sentence above would have been a better response than the rhetorical “And how’s that working out so far?”.
No, i’m thinkin’ not. Get down on all fours, bow your head, then I’ll talk.
You mangy curr!
I don’t think anyone’s seriously disagreeing with that. Hell, I’m a supporter of castle doctrine type defense laws and I think this idiot should be on the hook for attempted murder.
That wasn’t rhetorical. I was asking him how the system as it now stands is working, in his opinion. Just for you, if I ask a rhetorical question, I’ll label it as such, o.k.?
I dunno; the ability to legally kill annoying people could do an awful lot of good in the world.
The lamb asks the lion, “Hey, what’s for dinner?”
Do you disagree that it is criminals and idiots, not guns, that is the problem?
Using my personal definition of annoying, of course, that being the only legitimate one.
- my emphasis *
C’mon. You gotta admit a fucked up burger can really stir up your ant pile.
As for OP: Shotgun man has anger issues and is a danger to himself and/or others. Federal time? Maybe. But I’d be more inclined to think he’s just nuts. His freedoms still need to be modified though.
While true, we wouldn’t want just anyone getting the idea that their definition of “annoying” counted, right?
The shooting was awful of course and the kid didn’t deserve to be shot for ding-dong ditch, but I bet the kid never disrespects other people’s property again. I bet he becomes an honor roll student and model citizen.
The glass is half full, right?
How do you know he wasn’t already an honor roll student and all-around good kid before he got shot in the back? What have you read that tells you otherwise?
ETA: I hardly think ringing a doorbell and leaving before anyone answers the door is “disrepecting other people’s property”. You have some fucked up notions if you think it is.