Do the gun morons really don't understand that - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

DamianJ · 01-18-2013, 08:21 AM

Fiddy gun nuts

iSpyCams · 01-18-2013, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotsie

That doesn't sum it up at all, that's a bullshit strawman argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Why does everybody keep trying to equate rational gun control laws with: "Big gubment wants take all ur guns"?

Taking the most effective guns away and cataloging the others to gradually take those away is not OK with me.

Dirty F · 01-18-2013, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pompousjohn

Here's a quote I saw yesterday that sums it up:

If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.

Did a retarded 8 year old write that?
The stuff you people come up with.
Embarrassing. .

Voland 13 · 01-18-2013, 11:49 AM

another Dirty F's idiot 57,921 post full of shit and natter...

Dirty F · 01-18-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voland 13

another Dirty F's idiot 57,921 post full of shit and natter...

I see you're still upset i said something about the 14 year old on your tour.

Voland 13 · 01-18-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

I see you're still upset i said something about the 14 year old on your tour.

I see you are here to chat and to jerk off on all of you shit. silly childishness

what did you make in adult ?

J. Falcon · 01-18-2013, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Obama's children need gun protection because their father is the president of the USA? Really? They are THAT retarded?

Yes, they are that retarded.

iSpyCams · 01-18-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Did a retarded 8 year old write that?
The stuff you people come up with.
Embarrassing. .

What a compelling argument.

GrantMercury · 01-18-2013, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

You don't even understand your own argument. You are using the "children" as the reason for banning guns but the guns used to kill the kids aren't being banned?

So why the fuck do you care?

School Shooter Adam Lanza Used Military-Style Bushmaster Rifle

Quote:

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.

...

Quote:

The massacre in Newtown is far from Bushmaster's first brush with tragedy. The company's semiautomatic rifles were used in at least four high-profile mass shootings since 1999, including a 2009 rampage that left 10 dead across southern Alabama, and a 2010 shooting spree in Virginia that killed eight people over 19 hours.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2312818.html

And regardless of the weapon of choice, what would it have to do with universal background checks at the very least?

GrantMercury · 01-18-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotsie

That doesn't sum it up at all, that's a bullshit strawman argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Why does everybody keep trying to equate rational gun control laws with: "Big gubment wants take all ur guns"?

Because the latter (imaginary) argument is easier.

Trying to justify to any sentient being that universal background checks are a bad idea is a tall order.

So they change the argument.

eroticsexxx · 01-19-2013, 10:16 AM

Not everyone who owns guns is a moron or buys into everything the NRA (or any other pro-gun activist group) says.

Following that logic, all persons who support gun control aren't mindless sheep who are willing to trust the government blindly for the sake of "safety".

Both sides of the argument have merit, but each side appears more than willing to lambaste the other using extreme examples in an attempt to "win" people over.

The facts are clear. The killer was mentally unstable.

Did he use guns? Yes. Could he have used something else? Yes.

Will such a tragedy happen again, even if assault guns are banned? Statistically, Yes.

How? A mentally unstable person who works in a kitchen could poison food in a large cafeteria or one who works on trains could leave an engine bolt loose enough to cause a devastating explosion.

The bottom line is that people are reactionary and the government wants to be seen as doing something. Even if gun control laws don't pass at least they "appear" to be doing something.

Meanwhile people piss each other off in an attempt to argue their point...

OneHungLo · 01-19-2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

kids goofing off better than doing those jackass stunts

Nah man...not better. That shit was fucked up.

01-18-2013, 11:49 AM	#54
Voland 13 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 134	another Dirty F's idiot 57,921 post full of shit and natter... Last edited by Voland 13; 01-18-2013 at 11:50 AM..

01-19-2013, 10:16 AM	#61
eroticsexxx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nassau, Bahamas Posts: 3,133	Not everyone who owns guns is a moron or buys into everything the NRA (or any other pro-gun activist group) says. Following that logic, all persons who support gun control aren't mindless sheep who are willing to trust the government blindly for the sake of "safety". Both sides of the argument have merit, but each side appears more than willing to lambaste the other using extreme examples in an attempt to "win" people over. The facts are clear. The killer was mentally unstable. Did he use guns? Yes. Could he have used something else? Yes. Will such a tragedy happen again, even if assault guns are banned? Statistically, Yes. How? A mentally unstable person who works in a kitchen could poison food in a large cafeteria or one who works on trains could leave an engine bolt loose enough to cause a devastating explosion. The bottom line is that people are reactionary and the government wants to be seen as doing something. Even if gun control laws don't pass at least they "appear" to be doing something. Meanwhile people piss each other off in an attempt to argue their point... Last edited by eroticsexxx; 01-19-2013 at 10:22 AM..

01-18-2013, 08:21 AM	#51
DamianJ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land Posts: 15,808	Fiddy gun nuts