Biden Crime wave
- Thread starter nail1988
- Start date
Think we've figured out theo's priorities:
1 - Trolling law-abiding gun owners
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
547 - Actually addressing gun violence
1 - Trolling law-abiding gun owners
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
547 - Actually addressing gun violence
If only there was a law against this, that officer would be alive.
Got it! Since I don't worship Trump or guns, I must be a pro-criminal democrat.
I've come to expect 'entertaining' logic from you people. Carry on!
You should tag a mod. I'm sure they want to hear about every scoundrel with whom you disagree.
No law-abiding gun owner was involved, so theo isn't interested in discussing.
Sad to see where our troll's priorities are.
Gun violence is terrible. Too bad we resist coming together and seriously addressing it.
I don't worship either.
But way to mischaracterize anyone's opinion that disagrees with you so you don't have to have an honest discussion.
I'm all for addressing it.
The disagreement of the definition of the root cause is most likely going to prevent that.
One side is dug in to protect the gun industry and the other side is dug in to protect violent democrats.
Both sides are contributing to the problem yet neither wants to take any responsibility.
In this case, the family knew their loved one had schizophrenia...and there were guns in the home that he (obviously) gained access to.
That's not just ridiculous, it's incomprehensible and unconscionable.
I dgaf about the gun industry. I care about my rights.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You can start by addressing @fatman76's point: What law would have prevented this act of gun violence?
How does what you just typed promote a healthy discussion about gun violence?
And his statement was completely inaccurate.
One side is dug in on their constitutionally protected right. The other side is dug in on removing that right from the people in order to create a nanny state where the citizenry is required to depend on big government.
That's the debate.
Maybe people will look in the mirror and realize that they are part of the problem.
So in your mind any healthy discussion about gun violence starts with the people you disagree with admitting they are part of the problem?
I didn't mention or assign blame. I defined the debate. That is the debate. If you disagree, you're being untruthful or you're just misinformed.
Absolutely. Both sides need to clear their brains and open their eyes.
Right. There is absolutely no way to know which side you're on.
"One side is dug in on their constitutionally protected right. The other side is dug in on removing that right from the people in order to create a nanny state where the citizenry is required to depend on big government."
Okay, I'm slow to this connection with you and gun violence. What are you suggesting when you say "addressing it"? You show an issue, but what's your idea on solving it?
Because libs do not follow or BELIEVE in the Constitution when they disagree with it. Theo is a lib. He is just a trolling lib. If you cannot see how he tries to discuss things and figure out he is a lib I do not know what to tell you
Glad to hear you say that. What are you doing to open your mind and eyes to the other side of the argument?
Unlike the partisan extremists on both sides, I correctly recognize we have two problems needing to be addressed.
1. We have a permissive culture that enables violent democrats.
2. We are flooded with guns.
unbelievable and the quisling fans that did nothing are a disgrace
So you're claiming everyone else is wrong....but you aren't?
Isn't that what you claimed @BamaFan1137 was doing?
Here's my take. We have a right to bear arms. Period. Yes, we are flooded with guns. Thank God that's the case. Take away guns of ordinary folks like me doesn't take away the guns of the bad guys. They will find a way to get a gun period. It cannot be stopped. Law abiding citizens are the ones who are put on the spot for not complying with some anti-gun protocol. As for me, I WILL NOT walk into an establishment that prohibits guns on their premises. You think a killer will say he can't go there because he can't take in his gun? There have been extremists, as you call them, on the Right, but they are very, very few. Most gun owners respect life unless threatened. It's the Democrats who are calling for our guns when they need to focus on the thugs of this world. And it's the Republicans who are too liberal in their viewpoint to do anything about it because of the mean old Democrats and that's where we become permissive in enabling violence. So, what's your solution? Mine is to stop creating a racist and political divide. Well, since that isn't going to happen, I would suggest every violent act be held accountable by jail without bail. Put the fear in the criminals and get them off the streets. But for you there seems to be some sort of debate that needs to take place. No there isn't. Either you are for the Constitution or you are not.
OK, so you've identified what you think the issues are - now what are the solutions?
Not when you are a lib. Theo is a lib. Constitution be DAMNED
Last edited:
I'd make gun ownership a privilege rather than a right (how fast would the gun companies mobilize the NRA for that? 😂 Because they care so deeply for the constitution, of course!).
I'd keep violent people behind bars at a much higher rate. I'd have professional juries for violence cases. When it became obvious someone was going to be a career violent criminal, I'd put them away for life.
So we already have that in regards to gun ownership, you have the right to bear arms, but there are also restrictions on ownership, as their should be. So your first point on gun ownership being privilege is already in place.
Agree on violent criminals being kept behind bars.
I honestly think you know your first point is moot and you are just adopting the stance that it isn't to troll this board cause you believe there are more pro-gun people here than anti-gun.
Either way, glad to see you have come around.
Did you actually read what freeze said? Cause he said pretty much exactly what you did.
See? You both are more or less on the same page, but your takeaway is to troll him over agreeing with you???
How is that promoting a healthy discussion about gun violence?
I think it's pretty obvious you would rather troll than have a healthy discussion about gun violence. I don't need to tag fresno, I think he can see it as well.
There are a ton of restrictions on gun ownership. As there should be, in fact this is one of those rare issues where EVERY poster here agrees that there should be restrictions.
So we have already addressed your point on gun ownership, and I think most posters here agree with you in regards to strictly punishing criminals committing gun violence.
Agreed?
I'm pretty much on the same page with gun fanatics regarding criminals.
Where we differ is, I correctly recognize the problems caused by our glut of guns. You guys either don't recognize it or don't care.
Question: If all of you are OK with restrictions, why do you all get so agitated over "shall not be infringed"?
We do recognize the problem. However, we understand that the problem is attached to the person, not the weapon. You don't see that.
Because we understand the implications of denying Americans their Constitutional rights.
You either don't recognize the risk, or don't care.
