Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[Biggs3535]

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

And in case any of you peons have forgot, the mighty Vin has vanquished you while drinking beer with one hand tied behind his back. Do not even try to argue any more, victory has been declared.

17 pages later, PeanutButterCheeseBoy is still taking an arsewhippin'.

[Biggs3535]

Gun buy back programs seek to do the following:

"The goal is to get unwanted weapons out of people’s homes, ensuring they aren’t stolen or the cause of an accident."

http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2013/02/09/west/west-news/gun-buyback-starts-today.html

because guns are never stolen or the cause of accidental death . . .

Neither are cars. Wanna buy mine?

almost tired of posting this BUT . . .  . . a CAR serves a non-violent purpose in society.  A can can be used to kills, but is not generally used to kill. The ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.

Since this is obviously truthful, because both you and CBW posted it - how many guns that have been sold have been used to kill someone?  And how many guns that have been sold have not been used to kill someone?

[olafberserker]

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

And in case any of you peons have forgot, the mighty Vin has vanquished you while drinking beer with one hand tied behind his back. Do not even try to argue any more, victory has been declared.

17 pages later, PeanutButterCheeseBoy is still taking an arsewhippin'.

yep

[VinBucFan]

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

And in case any of you peons have forgot, the mighty Vin has vanquished you while drinking beer with one hand tied behind his back. Do not even try to argue any more, victory has been declared.

17 pages later, PeanutButterCheeseBoy is still taking an arsewhippin'.

yep

lol

[VinBucFan]

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

And in case any of you peons have forgot, the mighty Vin has vanquished you while drinking beer with one hand tied behind his back. Do not even try to argue any more, victory has been declared.

17 pages later, PeanutButterCheeseBoy is still taking an arsewhippin'.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/07/house-democrats-unveil-gun-control-proposals/


Wow, and here's the BIG shock:  a call for banning assault weapons and noting the Heller decision provides just that authority:

"The 20-page proposal begins with an affirmation of Democratic support for the Second Amendment, but notes the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, that the constitutional right to bear arms “is not unlimited.” “Within the limits described by Heller, the federal government has the responsibility to take appropriate steps to protect our citizens from gun violence,” the document says."

Thompson’s working group also calls for a new federal ban on military-style assault weapons, which the group said “constitute a lethal threat to law enforcement and other first responders.”

 

[VinBucFan]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/09/16912259-death-takes-no-holiday-tracking-gun-violence-over-one-long-january-weekend?lite

[Biggs3535]

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

And in case any of you peons have forgot, the mighty Vin has vanquished you while drinking beer with one hand tied behind his back. Do not even try to argue any more, victory has been declared.

17 pages later, PeanutButterCheeseBoy is still taking an arsewhippin'.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/07/house-democrats-unveil-gun-control-proposals/


Wow, and here's the BIG shock:  a call for banning assault weapons and noting the Heller decision provides just that authority:

"The 20-page proposal begins with an affirmation of Democratic support for the Second Amendment, but notes the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, that the constitutional right to bear arms “is not unlimited.” “Within the limits described by Heller, the federal government has the responsibility to take appropriate steps to protect our citizens from gun violence,” the document says."

Thompson’s working group also calls for a new federal ban on military-style assault weapons, which the group said “constitute a lethal threat to law enforcement and other first responders.”

 

 
 
 


Feel the cheese.  Be the cheese.

[CBWx2]

Since this is obviously truthful, because both you and CBW posted it - how many guns that have been sold have been used to kill someone?  And how many guns that have been sold have not been used to kill someone?

It doesn't really matter. The purpose of a car is to transport a driver and passenger/s from point A to point B. If used irresponsibly, negligently, or if the roads are bad, accidents can happen, and sometimes people can be killed. But that is not why cars were invented, why they are manufactured, or why people buy them.

Guns were invented to kill. Period. They were not invented to be used as hobbies, toys, decorations, or accessories. People may used them that way, but that is not their purpose. That is not how or why they they came into existence. They are weapons. Their purpose is to "injure, defeat, or destroy" as defined by the dictionary. Choosing not to use them that way doesn't mean that that is not their purpose, just as choosing to use a butter knife as a screw driver doesn't mean that it is no longer a butter knife.

[olafberserker]

I am not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of regulations for gun ownership throughout this country or even the other things mentioned per say, but your comments reek of exaggeration.   I am not aware of a 3 day waiting period to purchase any of the other items you mentioned, but there is one in Florida to purchase a handgun.

Ever been to a gun show, olaf?

I must admit that I have not.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/08/background-checks-and-the-so-called-gun-show-loophole/

[VinBucFan]

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

And in case any of you peons have forgot, the mighty Vin has vanquished you while drinking beer with one hand tied behind his back. Do not even try to argue any more, victory has been declared.

17 pages later, PeanutButterCheeseBoy is still taking an arsewhippin'.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/07/house-democrats-unveil-gun-control-proposals/


Wow, and here's the BIG shock:  a call for banning assault weapons and noting the Heller decision provides just that authority:

"The 20-page proposal begins with an affirmation of Democratic support for the Second Amendment, but notes the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, that the constitutional right to bear arms “is not unlimited.” “Within the limits described by Heller, the federal government has the responsibility to take appropriate steps to protect our citizens from gun violence,” the document says."

Thompson’s working group also calls for a new federal ban on military-style assault weapons, which the group said “constitute a lethal threat to law enforcement and other first responders.”

 

 
 
 


Feel the cheese.  Be the cheese.

Damn, and here I was thinking I would get an intellectually honest and mature " you know, I was wrong "

Lol.

[VinBucFan]

Since this is obviously truthful, because both you and CBW posted it - how many guns that have been sold have been used to kill someone?  And how many guns that have been sold have not been used to kill someone?

It doesn't really matter. The purpose of a car is to transport a driver and passenger/s from point A to point B. If used irresponsibly, negligently, or if the roads are bad, accidents can happen, and sometimes people can be killed. But that is not why cars were invented, why they are manufactured, or why people buy them.

Guns were invented to kill. Period. They were not invented to be used as hobbies, toys, decorations, or accessories. People may used them that way, but that is not their purpose. That is not how or why they they came into existence. They are weapons. Their purpose is to "injure, defeat, or destroy" as defined by the dictionary. Choosing not to use them that way doesn't mean that that is not their purpose, just as choosing to use a butter knife as a screw driver doesn't mean that it is no longer a butter knife.

It border on absurd, or maybe dishonest, when someone compares guns to cars. I can't believe people even make that comparison because all it does is show how hollow their point if view is.

Anyway, guns that kill people are bought, stolen, found, handed down and more. The point is there are 310 million of them. That's a ton if guns sitting around in homes with small children, upset people, distraught people, criminal people, mentally-handicapped people and more.

[olafberserker]

Since this is obviously truthful, because both you and CBW posted it - how many guns that have been sold have been used to kill someone?  And how many guns that have been sold have not been used to kill someone?

It doesn't really matter. The purpose of a car is to transport a driver and passenger/s from point A to point B. If used irresponsibly, negligently, or if the roads are bad, accidents can happen, and sometimes people can be killed. But that is not why cars were invented, why they are manufactured, or why people buy them.

Guns were invented to kill. Period. They were not invented to be used as hobbies, toys, decorations, or accessories. People may used them that way, but that is not their purpose. That is not how or why they they came into existence. They are weapons. Their purpose is to "injure, defeat, or destroy" as defined by the dictionary. Choosing not to use them that way doesn't mean that that is not their purpose, just as choosing to use a butter knife as a screw driver doesn't mean that it is no longer a butter knife.

Except it does matter when someone is trying to argue that if we get rid of the guns (or some of the guns or whatever), then we get rid of the violence.  What percentage of violent crimes are committed with a gun?

[VinBucFan]

Since this is obviously truthful, because both you and CBW posted it - how many guns that have been sold have been used to kill someone?  And how many guns that have been sold have not been used to kill someone?

It doesn't really matter. The purpose of a car is to transport a driver and passenger/s from point A to point B. If used irresponsibly, negligently, or if the roads are bad, accidents can happen, and sometimes people can be killed. But that is not why cars were invented, why they are manufactured, or why people buy them.

Guns were invented to kill. Period. They were not invented to be used as hobbies, toys, decorations, or accessories. People may used them that way, but that is not their purpose. That is not how or why they they came into existence. They are weapons. Their purpose is to "injure, defeat, or destroy" as defined by the dictionary. Choosing not to use them that way doesn't mean that that is not their purpose, just as choosing to use a butter knife as a screw driver doesn't mean that it is no longer a butter knife.

Except it does matter when someone is trying to argue that if we get rid of the guns (or some of the guns or whatever), then we get rid of the violence.  What percentage of violent crimes are committed with a gun?

Has anyone on this message board actually argued "if we get rid of the guns (or some of the guns or whatever), then we get rid of the violence"?  I think Buggsy would give you an impolite "link?" Noting your follow up question, it must be that someone has said "if you get rid of guns you get rid of violence," but I confess I haven't seen anyone make that argument.  Maybe I missed it?

[olafberserker]

And you have the nerve to question the intellectual honesty of other posters ....

[VinBucFan]

And you have the nerve to question the intellectual honesty of other posters ....

Hate to even type this for you to read, but restating a person's argument into an extreme position is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.  It's the same as saying "well, yeah I cant really refute your position unless I restate it as an extreme,"  I am pretty sure you know that and that is probably why you didn't respond with a link or some other evidence of someone making the extreme argument you put out there.