The Toyota Tundra is assembled in San Antonio, Texas and contains more parts assembled in the USA or Canada than the big three, 65%.
Chevy and Dodge trucks are assembled in Old Mexico, and Ford only uses 45% American parts.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
Chevy and Dodge trucks are assembled in Old Mexico, and Ford only uses 45% American parts.
First of all...the Constitution says ZERO about need...it talks about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
SECOINDLY...Theo...what is wrong with you, son? You come here and get absolutely BEAT DOWN with facts....and you come back for more. Do you enjoy getting your azz beat EVERY DAY? Because you have not brought ANYTHING to this whole thread where you won an argument. NOT ONCE...but you keep coming back to get slapped around?
How many guns did the Israelis need on the border towns near Gaza? Answer? More than they had. I NEVER want to be in that position. I would rather WIN a fight that I get in to...especially if a gun comes out.
In your case we're going on what you post here. You throw in a few 'Biden sucks' posts occasionally and think that's makes us wonder if maybe you aren't really a liberal.
It doesn't. You give yourself away on the issues that are near and dear to liberals.
We don't have a right to unlimited cars? Who told you this?
Someone needs to tell me...I have never heard that before
Required viewing for @GatorTheo
www.foxla.com
Mid-City homeowner fires on would-be robbers
Video shows two suspects jumped a fence and attempted to rob a Mid-City homeowner at gunpoint. Little did they know the intended victim had a concealed carry permit.
Yep. And I thank them for the service they provide by supporting their business.
Capitalism at work. It’s Fantastic.
What if the amendment for vehicles stated “in an effort for each person to form an armada, necessary to the formation of a free state”?
Would two still do it?
I don’t tow anything heavy so the Tundra fit my main need - a decent sized bed and reliability. I haul lacrosse goals and equipment around pretty often.
My car before that was a 1989 F150 long bed, so I’m familiar with Detroit steel.
And the only testicles I hang are attached to my body and hidden as much as possible.
That doesn't really make sense because each person couldn't form a militia (even if that's what it said).
Maybe "A well regulated armada, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear vehicles, shall not be infringed."
But, even then, if you had two vehicles, you'd be keeping and bearing vehicles.
Just like the cigarette companies.
Just wondering, can you say that cigarettes don't kill people because they are inanimate?
And just think, those DGUs happen thousands of times every single day. Seems like you guys would post them FAR more frequently.Required viewing for @GatorTheo
Mid-City homeowner fires on would-be robbers
Video shows two suspects jumped a fence and attempted to rob a Mid-City homeowner at gunpoint. Little did they know the intended victim had a concealed carry permit.
Lil Theo Just wondering, can you say that cigarettes don't kill people because they are inanimate?
YES...I CAN say that for sure.
YES...I CAN say that for sure.
Yes but your aren’t guaranteeing the free and necessary formation of an armada.
Again, does the first sentence in the 1A mean Congress should have no role in lawmaking?
You don’t get to omit entire sections of an amendment and just keep the parts you want.
Correct, you might be catching on finally!
I could be in a room full of thousands of cigarettes and my lungs would be safe, as long as someone didn’t light one.
I also believe that spoons are not to blame for obesity, people with crap diets and zero self control are.
You people chant "shall not be infringed" over and over. You can't do that anymore?
So cigarettes don't kill people. The medical community will be very interested in this news.
Inhaling cigarette smoke, actively or passively, can cause health conditions that can result in death.
If I wanted to nitpick I would say the cancer, emphysema, or COPD causes death. The cigarettes cause the conditions.
If you don't smoke, and don't frequent places that do, cigarettes won't kill you.
You can still get lung cancer or COPD and die.
This is a poorly reasoned argument.
You did much better with "100 percent of gun violence is caused by guns."
Cigarettes, like guns, require people and fire to be deadly.
So your official position is that cigarettes don't cause deaths? (It's a yes or no question.)
No, it isn't. Cigarettes can cause death. So can guns.
But merely being in the presence of guns or cigarettes does not cause death.
If this is how you frame the argument no wonder this thread is 40 plus pages.
There are posters here who will disagree with you.
The thread is 40 pages because gun nuts will fight tooth and nail that guns don't kill anybody (and other insane takes).
I'm going to restate your question.
So your official position is that peanuts don't cause deaths? (It's a yes or no question.)
I'd say no. I'm pretty sure peanuts cause deaths (or at least severe health issues).
That makes me wonder, do peanut nuts gripe about peanut free zones?
So I guess you're the only one we know who didn't like the movie Happy Gilmore, and his boss Mr Larsen who definitely looks like @nail1988.
Exactly, but it removes all nuance from the situation.
Unless I choke on it, a peanut is unlikely to kill me.
If my son or grandson eat a peanut, barring being in possession of an epi pen or close proximity to an emergency room, they very well could.
The gun violence problem is not simple, and does not have a simple solution.
In this instance letting people who can responsibly consume peanuts be free to do so while keeping peanuts away from prohibited persons is the best solution. Limiting how many peanuts I can have isn't going to help my son or grandson if they get a hold of just one.
As you can see, even this is a very incomplete assessment of the situation, and peanuts are not included in the bill of rights.
Because then you would be honest about them happening?
That's because 'gun nuts' are focused on the behavior of the person with the gun.
You are focused on the gun itself. The inanimate object.
We are focused on the USER. Because that's where the problem lies.
For instance, as @fatman76 has told us, the number one cause of gun deaths is suicide. If we removed the gun from the equation, would that eliminate the suicides and save lives? Sadly, it would not in the vast majority of those cases.
So in this instance, focusing on the inanimate object is almost pointless. We should be focusing on the horrific outcome that happened as a result of the PERSON using the gun.
You are focused on the gun. We are focused on solving the actual problem of violence.
That's fine but you won't even admit that guns cause deaths. What you guys are focused on is defending guns. You will latch on to ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous, to defend guns.
A gun is an inanimate object. I'm sorry you can't handle that.
You claimed that guns cause problems. What are they?
Actually they do. It's just rare to be recorded on camera, but technology is advancing 😂
But peanuts, inanimate objects, DO cause problems and I think pretty much everyone, even peanut lovers, can admit that. Gun lovers are not like that.
I'm getting the feeling that your position is: yes, guns do cause us a lot of problems but we can't limit them because they are protected by law. Like, gun problems are the price we pay for freedom.
The vibe we're getting from you is "peanuts should be banned, because they "can" be dangerous. 😂
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Obama and Schwarzenegger‘sCalifornia solar plant Ivanpah To Close- Latest: DCandtheUTBand
-
-
-