Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

They already had precedent from 2000 with Bush.

Any claims about not wanting to set precedent in courts deciding elections are bullshit to cover for cowardice.
Exactly; and with the courts having proven themselves cowards, I can't see them suddenly having the guts to stand up to the establishment.
 
Friendly Reminder: Please be more civil with other posters. Poor communication on their part does not excuse rude communication on yours.
Suicidal people don't stop being suicidal because they lack guns to kill themselves with; maybe instead of targeting the means with which they commit suicide, perhaps we should consider their reasons for wanting to do so, and try to deal with those? Just a thought, you know; assuming you actually care that people are suffering, beyond how they might be used to push your political ideology.
Why does it have to be instead of? I think it's worth considering both means and motivation. Drugs that are only harmful in potential suicide are restricted on that basis alone. Reducing the means often does as much to limit numbers as reducing motive.
Don't get me started on how useless SHARP and EO breifs/classes are. I took a speciality one for Ft Hood called SWAT, and I actually liked it because I learned that, you can make a defense that you are being discriminated on as a white guy. I felt so happy to know that.
-snip-
Man, you really need to work on your communication skills.
"These things are so pointless! I did one, and I'm glad I did because it taught me something new and useful!" Also just wild punctuation everywhere. Don't give me any of that "Just phone posting!" shit either; it's the only way I post.
 
Why does it have to be instead of? I think it's worth considering both means and motivation. Drugs that are only harmful in potential suicide are restricted on that basis alone. Reducing the means often does as much to limit numbers as reducing motive.
Because addressing the motive makes addressing the means superfluous. If no one wants to kill themselves, what sense does it make to restrict the rights of everyone in the name of preventing people from killing themselves? Unless it was never about those people, and you were just using them as an easy excuse to justify a gun grab that is in truth ideologically-motivated. Because don't think I didn't notice that you ignored Marduk pointing out the flaws in your assertion that "America has an unusually high rate of suicide", and how that relates to gun proliferation.
 
Why does it have to be instead of? I think it's worth considering both means and motivation. Drugs that are only harmful in potential suicide are restricted on that basis alone. Reducing the means often does as much to limit numbers as reducing motive.

Man, you really need to work on your communication skills.
"These things are so pointless! I did one, and I'm glad I did because it taught me something new and useful!" Also just wild punctuation everywhere. Don't give me any of that "Just phone posting!" shit either; it's the only way I post.
I'm lazy and my point is usually gotten across. If people need further explanation they can ask. Not hard ya know.

I am in the military and everyone is constantly adding new things that may go nowhere or go somewhere. I just happen to be on a base with a very sordid past.
 
208444747_4791238477560141_3416977275538301668_n.jpg
 
to be fair I didn't catch it at first glance, but it seemed pretty obvious once I saw the word slingshot.

Amazon doesn't allow the sale of any firearms or ammunition.

Honestly, I'm fairly certain they want to ban slingshots too; as well as anything else that one could conceivably use as a weapon.

Yeah, Britain and Japan both have restrictions on airgun energy, and the restriction aren't on just the high end stuff that can approximate a firearm in power, it hits most bb guns.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top