Originally posted by Jedidiah
View Post
If a guy is out of circulation for 20 years that eliminates him as a threat.
I never said that you were making that point. I was simply commenting on passing a law against one thing because it MIGHT stop something else.
If I only get two options I select getting rid of background checks. It is not my problem as to how to track no felons and hospitalized mental patients. I only said those were the two limits I would accept. I do not accept prohibiting non hospitalized mentally troubled people. I do not trust those who would be able to decide who was troubled. Gun grabbers have already shown their dishonesty in that arena.
Not interested in going originalist in one case but not the other. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
I made my suggestion and you did not trust my researchers. I don't trust your researchers.
It should not be funded publicly, and it is already going on. You don't trust one side and I don't trust the other. I also do not believe "we all want the same thing: a safe place to live and freedom from fear of violence in any form." The only reason that serious gun restrictions are not already a done deal is not because the government is "sitting on their backsides doing nothing about gun control." It is because the American people oppose the gun grabbers to an adequate degree. Remember that the NRA would not be able to swing enough power to stop the gun grabbers without significant public support. Some the left have openly admitted that their goal is the ultimate confiscation of all guns in private hands, and I believe many others agree but are not being honest. I use the term "gun grabbers" because I beliee that is the ultimate goal of the Big Government crowd. (Be glad that I did not use my usual "Gun Grabbing Ghouls" instead of just gun grabbers.)I am angry at the liberals who are in government, and at supposed conservatives who are as liberal as can be. At least one of Alaska's legislators falls into that category. I am not angry at you, only disappointed in the hackneyed arguments I hear. I think we have too much gun control and you think we have too little. Where can we meet?
This is a bit confused since I tried to answer too much, but I hope you get the drift.
I never said that you were making that point. I was simply commenting on passing a law against one thing because it MIGHT stop something else.
If I only get two options I select getting rid of background checks. It is not my problem as to how to track no felons and hospitalized mental patients. I only said those were the two limits I would accept. I do not accept prohibiting non hospitalized mentally troubled people. I do not trust those who would be able to decide who was troubled. Gun grabbers have already shown their dishonesty in that arena.
Not interested in going originalist in one case but not the other. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.
I made my suggestion and you did not trust my researchers. I don't trust your researchers.
It should not be funded publicly, and it is already going on. You don't trust one side and I don't trust the other. I also do not believe "we all want the same thing: a safe place to live and freedom from fear of violence in any form." The only reason that serious gun restrictions are not already a done deal is not because the government is "sitting on their backsides doing nothing about gun control." It is because the American people oppose the gun grabbers to an adequate degree. Remember that the NRA would not be able to swing enough power to stop the gun grabbers without significant public support. Some the left have openly admitted that their goal is the ultimate confiscation of all guns in private hands, and I believe many others agree but are not being honest. I use the term "gun grabbers" because I beliee that is the ultimate goal of the Big Government crowd. (Be glad that I did not use my usual "Gun Grabbing Ghouls" instead of just gun grabbers.)I am angry at the liberals who are in government, and at supposed conservatives who are as liberal as can be. At least one of Alaska's legislators falls into that category. I am not angry at you, only disappointed in the hackneyed arguments I hear. I think we have too much gun control and you think we have too little. Where can we meet?
This is a bit confused since I tried to answer too much, but I hope you get the drift.
Comment