It's May 30, 2024, 04:52:38 AM
This action is completely worthless. It prevents absolutely nothing. So in this particular case: it would've been better off not reacting in this manner. Something bad happens so you punish the responsible gun owners who are least likely to jeopardize their 2nd amendment right? Government incompetency at its finest.Analogy: This is like if I were trying to stop people from eating unhealthy. I limit you to only buying 1 hamburger from a McDonald's location. Only thing is, there's a McDonald's on every other block (at least in Murica) and you can still get as much unhealthy shit food as you want. It's a slight inconvenience, but it stops nothing if someone is determined enough to cause harm (in this case, to themselves).If you're going to make a law, at least make it effective. I think the majority of us in this thread could of come up with a better alternative.
Quote from: NIKCC on January 05, 2013, 10:05:32 AMwhy couldn't it have been u instead of mike?lmaoIts been like a week or 2 and Will still hasn't answered my question. I'm starting to feel bad you, Will. You're a decent guy, but you're coming off as very ill-informed here.But back to the subject at hand: the pussy liberal God Obama introduced a gun law. It limits the size of magazines. Big whoop. So instead of carrying one weapon with more rounds, I can carry two separate weapons with the same amount of rounds total......you know, like how the Virginia Tech shooter did it?No proof this bill would prevent a mass shooting.No proof this bill would help keep guns out of "bad" people's hands.It merely further restricts the rights of registered gun owners who are for the most part responsible and careful with their arms. But guess what: babies are still gonna get shot in drive-bys by gangs, people are still gonna get held up with stolen weapons and someone that still wants to buy banana clips can buy them off the street.Are you all happy now?
why couldn't it have been u instead of mike?
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 10:41:25 PMThis action is completely worthless. It prevents absolutely nothing. So in this particular case: it would've been better off not reacting in this manner. Something bad happens so you punish the responsible gun owners who are least likely to jeopardize their 2nd amendment right? Government incompetency at its finest.Analogy: This is like if I were trying to stop people from eating unhealthy. I limit you to only buying 1 hamburger from a McDonald's location. Only thing is, there's a McDonald's on every other block (at least in Murica) and you can still get as much unhealthy shit food as you want. It's a slight inconvenience, but it stops nothing if someone is determined enough to cause harm (in this case, to themselves).If you're going to make a law, at least make it effective. I think the majority of us in this thread could of come up with a better alternative.So inaction isn't the key. At least we're making progress here !!
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 09:24:37 PMQuote from: NIKCC on January 05, 2013, 10:05:32 AMwhy couldn't it have been u instead of mike?lmaoIts been like a week or 2 and Will still hasn't answered my question. I'm starting to feel bad you, Will. You're a decent guy, but you're coming off as very ill-informed here.But back to the subject at hand: the pussy liberal God Obama introduced a gun law. It limits the size of magazines. Big whoop. So instead of carrying one weapon with more rounds, I can carry two separate weapons with the same amount of rounds total......you know, like how the Virginia Tech shooter did it?No proof this bill would prevent a mass shooting.No proof this bill would help keep guns out of "bad" people's hands.It merely further restricts the rights of registered gun owners who are for the most part responsible and careful with their arms. But guess what: babies are still gonna get shot in drive-bys by gangs, people are still gonna get held up with stolen weapons and someone that still wants to buy banana clips can buy them off the street.Are you all happy now?Yes, yes I am happy... LOLAs I have said hundreds of times... this is what needs to be address... http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-08/justice/gun.soccer.mom.dead_1_deleo-neighbor-second-amendment?_s=PM:CRIMEShe should have had a gun.
Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 22, 2013, 12:32:37 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 10:41:25 PMThis action is completely worthless. It prevents absolutely nothing. So in this particular case: it would've been better off not reacting in this manner. Something bad happens so you punish the responsible gun owners who are least likely to jeopardize their 2nd amendment right? Government incompetency at its finest.Analogy: This is like if I were trying to stop people from eating unhealthy. I limit you to only buying 1 hamburger from a McDonald's location. Only thing is, there's a McDonald's on every other block (at least in Murica) and you can still get as much unhealthy shit food as you want. It's a slight inconvenience, but it stops nothing if someone is determined enough to cause harm (in this case, to themselves).If you're going to make a law, at least make it effective. I think the majority of us in this thread could of come up with a better alternative.So inaction isn't the key. At least we're making progress here !!Of course inaction is not the key. But passing a bullshit law isn't the right thing either. As a matter of fact, passing some BS worthless law is just the easy way out of a true solution for politicians.If people focused more on the real issue, which is a societal issue, instead of blaming this problem all on the guns, then maybe we would be making some actual progress. But let's just keep focusing on guns and punishing a segment of the population who had nothing to do with a mass shooting of a drive-by. Yeah.......that'll take care of the problem.
Quote from: M Dogg on January 22, 2013, 08:12:26 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 09:24:37 PMQuote from: NIKCC on January 05, 2013, 10:05:32 AMwhy couldn't it have been u instead of mike?lmaoIts been like a week or 2 and Will still hasn't answered my question. I'm starting to feel bad you, Will. You're a decent guy, but you're coming off as very ill-informed here.But back to the subject at hand: the pussy liberal God Obama introduced a gun law. It limits the size of magazines. Big whoop. So instead of carrying one weapon with more rounds, I can carry two separate weapons with the same amount of rounds total......you know, like how the Virginia Tech shooter did it?No proof this bill would prevent a mass shooting.No proof this bill would help keep guns out of "bad" people's hands.It merely further restricts the rights of registered gun owners who are for the most part responsible and careful with their arms. But guess what: babies are still gonna get shot in drive-bys by gangs, people are still gonna get held up with stolen weapons and someone that still wants to buy banana clips can buy them off the street.Are you all happy now?Yes, yes I am happy... LOLAs I have said hundreds of times... this is what needs to be address... http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-08/justice/gun.soccer.mom.dead_1_deleo-neighbor-second-amendment?_s=PM:CRIMEShe should have had a gun. How would the new laws proposed by the Obama administration have prevented this from happening?
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 22, 2013, 12:00:36 PMQuote from: M Dogg on January 22, 2013, 08:12:26 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 09:24:37 PMQuote from: NIKCC on January 05, 2013, 10:05:32 AMwhy couldn't it have been u instead of mike?lmaoIts been like a week or 2 and Will still hasn't answered my question. I'm starting to feel bad you, Will. You're a decent guy, but you're coming off as very ill-informed here.But back to the subject at hand: the pussy liberal God Obama introduced a gun law. It limits the size of magazines. Big whoop. So instead of carrying one weapon with more rounds, I can carry two separate weapons with the same amount of rounds total......you know, like how the Virginia Tech shooter did it?No proof this bill would prevent a mass shooting.No proof this bill would help keep guns out of "bad" people's hands.It merely further restricts the rights of registered gun owners who are for the most part responsible and careful with their arms. But guess what: babies are still gonna get shot in drive-bys by gangs, people are still gonna get held up with stolen weapons and someone that still wants to buy banana clips can buy them off the street.Are you all happy now?Yes, yes I am happy... LOLAs I have said hundreds of times... this is what needs to be address... http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-08/justice/gun.soccer.mom.dead_1_deleo-neighbor-second-amendment?_s=PM:CRIMEShe should have had a gun. How would the new laws proposed by the Obama administration have prevented this from happening?naah, he's sayin she shoulda had her gun....this is the soccer mom who was stripped of her right to own a gun, and this was the outcome.
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 22, 2013, 11:55:47 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 22, 2013, 12:32:37 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 10:41:25 PMThis action is completely worthless. It prevents absolutely nothing. So in this particular case: it would've been better off not reacting in this manner. Something bad happens so you punish the responsible gun owners who are least likely to jeopardize their 2nd amendment right? Government incompetency at its finest.Analogy: This is like if I were trying to stop people from eating unhealthy. I limit you to only buying 1 hamburger from a McDonald's location. Only thing is, there's a McDonald's on every other block (at least in Murica) and you can still get as much unhealthy shit food as you want. It's a slight inconvenience, but it stops nothing if someone is determined enough to cause harm (in this case, to themselves).If you're going to make a law, at least make it effective. I think the majority of us in this thread could of come up with a better alternative.So inaction isn't the key. At least we're making progress here !!Of course inaction is not the key. But passing a bullshit law isn't the right thing either. As a matter of fact, passing some BS worthless law is just the easy way out of a true solution for politicians.If people focused more on the real issue, which is a societal issue, instead of blaming this problem all on the guns, then maybe we would be making some actual progress. But let's just keep focusing on guns and punishing a segment of the population who had nothing to do with a mass shooting of a drive-by. Yeah.......that'll take care of the problem.You can't just reeducate and rehabilitate a nation overnight.I imagine this is a small part of a much bigger plan - to get the people used to change.Like me showing u how to fold paperNext week we make an airplane
Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 22, 2013, 12:20:25 PMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 22, 2013, 11:55:47 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 22, 2013, 12:32:37 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 10:41:25 PMThis action is completely worthless. It prevents absolutely nothing. So in this particular case: it would've been better off not reacting in this manner. Something bad happens so you punish the responsible gun owners who are least likely to jeopardize their 2nd amendment right? Government incompetency at its finest.Analogy: This is like if I were trying to stop people from eating unhealthy. I limit you to only buying 1 hamburger from a McDonald's location. Only thing is, there's a McDonald's on every other block (at least in Murica) and you can still get as much unhealthy shit food as you want. It's a slight inconvenience, but it stops nothing if someone is determined enough to cause harm (in this case, to themselves).If you're going to make a law, at least make it effective. I think the majority of us in this thread could of come up with a better alternative.So inaction isn't the key. At least we're making progress here !!Of course inaction is not the key. But passing a bullshit law isn't the right thing either. As a matter of fact, passing some BS worthless law is just the easy way out of a true solution for politicians.If people focused more on the real issue, which is a societal issue, instead of blaming this problem all on the guns, then maybe we would be making some actual progress. But let's just keep focusing on guns and punishing a segment of the population who had nothing to do with a mass shooting of a drive-by. Yeah.......that'll take care of the problem.You can't just reeducate and rehabilitate a nation overnight.I imagine this is a small part of a much bigger plan - to get the people used to change.Like me showing u how to fold paperNext week we make an airplane Well, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I agree with you that an issue can't be solved overnight and its not that simple.