Guns Have One Purpose - To Destroy What Is In Front Of The Barrel

[digger]

Consistent wrote:

Fact - Given the history of gun use and gun culture in America, it is impossible to guarantee that any particular gun will never be directed at and used on someone or something that should not be destroyed.
Fact - Given that the previous guarantee cannot be made, there is only one approach that will guarantee that no gun will ever be used to destroy someone or something that should not be destroyed.
That approach is the systematic elimination of all guns in America.

Well, by your definition, we should completely DISARM our entire military force.

[Consistent]

Sorry, bright eyes, I never said that.

[Amused Slew]

digger wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, by your definition, we should completely DISARM our entire military force.

Since the words in America are in the post, you might notice military don't walk the streets ARMED in America.

[digger]

Amused Slew wrote:

<quoted text>Since the words in America are in the post, you might notice military don't walk the streets ARMED in America.

Not YET they don't...... Just give it some time.

[Sangelia]

thanks to a quick thinking gun owning woman. another criminal is behind bars. this criminal is now serving eleven years for his crime.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1004936/14... ST. PAUL, Minn.- A man whose alleged burglary attempt of a St. Paul home was foiled by two women and a pink gun has been sentenced to almost 11 years in prison.
Prosecutors say Childs entered the home on a September afternoon through an unlocked back door, while 56-year-old Rebecca Larson was washing her car in the front driveway. Larson told investigators she walked in and found Childs standing next to her open purse.

[digger]

Consistent wrote:

Sorry, bright eyes, I never said that.

Well, you might as well have. Our military has been accused of abuses MANY TIMES, throughout it's history. Yet, we don't talk about disarming them.. In FACT, we give them more and better weapons and TONS OF AMMO all the time.

In FACT, many of our civilians HONORABLY SERVED in our nation's armed forces, yet now that they may no longer wear the uniform, our "grateful" government thinks that these people shouldn't be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle or pistol. In FACT, some former military members are being TARGETED to have their gun-owning rights TAKEN AWAY, even though they haven't been convicted of a CRIME.

[Amused Slew]

Exception isn't the norm, but be sure and let us know why a club wouldn't work...or a locked door.

[Amused Slew]

digger wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you might as well have. Our military has been accused of abuses MANY TIMES, throughout it's history. Yet, we don't talk about disarming them.. In FACT, we give them more and better weapons and TONS OF AMMO all the time.
In FACT, many of our civilians HONORABLY SERVED in our nation's armed forces, yet now that they may no longer wear the uniform, our "grateful" government thinks that these people shouldn't be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle or pistol. In FACT, some former military members are being TARGETED to have their gun-owning rights TAKEN AWAY, even though they haven't been convicted of a CRIME.

So, you had no point, but you're such a loser, you cannot admit it, WHEN YOU'RE WRONG !!!! Ps- Taking away unspecific rights is such a weak argument, poor putz...

[Consistent]

Amused Slew wrote:

<quoted text>So, you had no point, but you're such a loser, you cannot admit it, WHEN YOU'RE WRONG !!!! Ps- Taking away unspecific rights is such a weak argument, poor putz...

Welcome back, Your little fantasy about being ME is over for a while?

Those trips to Psycholand must really take a toll on you as a Genetic Defect?

[Consistent]

Oh, look, Consistent has recovered from his Phillips vodka induced coma long enough to attempt posting another unintelligible rant in every thread.

[digger]

Amused Slew wrote:

Sorry, but the exceptions don't prove the rule.... Guns kill many more, than they save.

Ah, no they don't, even if you count the suicidal. You just can't accept the facts regarding the lawful use of guns in defense of oneself, one's family or friends, or one's property.

[digger]

Amused Slew wrote:

Exception isn't the norm, but be sure and let us know why a club wouldn't work...or a locked door.

Against a thug, or maybe more than one thug, armed with guns?

[Amused Slew]

READ THE SITUATION OR LOOK LIKE A DIGGER...

"Prosecutors say Childs entered the home on a September afternoon through an unlocked back door..."

[Amused Slew]

digger wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, no they don't, even if you count the suicidal. You just can't accept the facts regarding the lawful use of guns in defense of oneself, one's family or friends, or one's property.

You don't use facts and are a complete moron, when you "try"...

[digger]

Amused Slew wrote:

<quoted text>You don't use facts and are a complete moron, when you "try"...

Says you....

[digger]

Amused Slew wrote:

READ THE SITUATION OR LOOK LIKE A DIGGER...
"Prosecutors say Childs entered the home on a September afternoon through an unlocked back door..."

Locked doors don't always stop desperate criminals. "Good" burglars use burglary tools, or go through windows, break in cars and operate the garage door opener, etc.

If we have to lock up every single door and window, 24/7, in our homes and businesses in America these days just to stay safe, then it's a pretty sad time in America.

Maybe, just MAYBE, it's time to lock up the proven and violent criminals in America for GOOD.

[digger]

Amused Slew wrote:

READ THE SITUATION OR LOOK LIKE A DIGGER...
"Prosecutors say Childs entered the home on a September afternoon through an unlocked back door..."

And he got 11 *YEARS* for this crime???

I'll bet that this wasn't the FIRST TIME that Child's "fractured" a law or two....

He probably should have received TWICE the sentence.

Personally, I would have felt better if she had shot the BUM to death, and planted a big kitchen knife in his hand.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.

When Childs gets out, he will go right back to doing what he does best, VICTIMIZE DECENT CITIZENS, maybe even kill the next victim, so he/she can't put him behind bars for another 10-15 years.

[digger]

Consistent wrote:

Sorry, bright eyes, I never said that.

You might as well have. If they are bad for responsible citizens, then why would we even consider giving our military such lethal weapons to fight on foreign land(s)??

[Consistent]

You can't just give guns to responsible citizens. You have to give guns to all citizens. And that's the problem.

[digger]

Consistent wrote:

You can't just give guns to responsible citizens. You have to give guns to all citizens. And that's the problem.

I **NEVER** said that. Only liberals push that NONSENSE.

We have laws that restrict gun ownership, and for good reason.

The problem is, is that LIBERAL PROSECUTORS **REFUSE** to prosecute SERIOUS GUN CRIMES, because of the "race" of the offender, USUALLY.

You REFUSE to RECOGNIZE and ADDRESS that PROBLEM. It's because you are stupid and BRAINWASHED in your ILLOGIC.