Lifestyle > Train of Thought
27 dead in elementary school shooting.....this shit has to be a set-up
Will_B:
--- Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 10:41:25 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
So inaction isn't the key. At least we're making progress here !!
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 09:24:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: NIKCC on January 05, 2013, 10:05:32 AM ---why couldn't it have been u instead of mike?
--- End quote ---
lmao
Its 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?
--- End quote ---
Yes, yes I am happy... LOL
As 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:CRIME
She should have had a gun.
Sikotic™:
--- Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 22, 2013, 12:32:37 AM ---
--- Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 10:41:25 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
So inaction isn't the key. At least we're making progress here !!
--- End quote ---
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.
Sikotic™:
--- Quote from: M Dogg on January 22, 2013, 08:12:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 09:24:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: NIKCC on January 05, 2013, 10:05:32 AM ---why couldn't it have been u instead of mike?
--- End quote ---
lmao
Its 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?
--- End quote ---
Yes, yes I am happy... LOL
As 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:CRIME
She should have had a gun.
--- End quote ---
How would the new laws proposed by the Obama administration have prevented this from happening?
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 22, 2013, 11:55:47 AM ---
--- Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 22, 2013, 12:32:37 AM ---
--- Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 21, 2013, 10:41:25 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
So inaction isn't the key. At least we're making progress here !!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
lmfao@"were making progress here !!"...smfh
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version