Gun Control

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by trickery dickery dock

He didn't equate it: God did. God also equated it with thievery and murder.

You are the one not picking and choosing Bible parts, not us.

I've asked you this many times, but you never answer.

What church are you referring to? Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Mormon, Eastern Orthodox, etc? Because they all disagree on many, many points.

Let me know when you get your "Christian" beliefs in order.

[trickery dickery dock]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I've asked you this many times, but you never answer.

What church are you referring to? Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Mormon, Eastern Orthodox, etc? Because they all disagree on many, many points.

Let me know when you get your "Christian" beliefs in order.

Sorry I forgot to answer it; it's not really important. I am a Baptist, but I know many who belong to the Church of Christ, Catholic Church, Assembly of God, any many others who draw the same conclusion about homos as my Church does. Why? The Bible is undisputably clear about it. Visit a Church and learn something.

[fatfencer]

Hauptman;784910]

You're wrong on so many levels, but I'll start with the fact that I never mentioned Christianity or any other religion for that matter, nor am I an atheist.

You are such a disingenuous little jew-****.(you're right your not an atheist-****!!) You were answering Beeblebrox and in your own post mention 'bible' 50 times.

You throw up so many straw men, and make so many factual errors....

Bull**** alert. There were no straw men. I neither misrepresented nor distorted your position. Misusing the strawman response is however, a type of strawman. The best way to deal with a strawman is to clarify your original meaning INLIGHT of, IN CONTRAST WITH your opponent's claims. I suspect you will have a hard time with this since I quoted you verbatim in my responses.

Inquartata has done this forum a horse**** service by misusing responses to fallacy. He knows better and so do I. But unlike me, he ENJOYS watching, and even SEEDING the misuse of argumentation. It's not enough to merely say 'strawman'. See wikipedia for help on how to actually use the fallacy responses.

not to mention the ad hominem attacks

You've had your fair share of these in other threads. My 'caps' of the term JEWS should have reminded you that I have a very long memory. Freudian slip indeed. I remind you calling someone an anti-Semite is also an ad hominem.

How's this for adhominem... you are a ****ing crybaby. I suppose I'd whine too if Fiddler on the Roof were somehow representative of MY culture. And Neil Diamond....ouch.

Crawl back under your bridge, troll

Look, I know forgiveness is the domain of Christianity and not Judaism, but someday... someday your going to have to forgive me for beta-testing your mother.

Fatfencer

PS: Stop jacking this thread. Its about gun control. You and TDD and Beeble can argue the merits of Christendom in another thread perhaps?

PPS: Not to be a Shylock, but instead of the usual pound of flesh can I have oh $50 for teaching you how to argue? You know, services rendered. Give a little love back to the community.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

{snip}
There was an interesting tidbit that came up during the debate before the Heller decision. The state of Montana has a clause in its statehood agreement that its citizens must be allowed the individual right to bear arms. If the federal government was to somehow criminalize firearm possession, would Montana have a right to secede?

As nearly as I can tell--the argument isn't that there was any kind of actual acknowledgment by the federal government of an individual rights theory when Montana was admitted--instead it is only that the US, in admitting Montana, "approved" Montana's constitution as providing a republican form of government.

Montana's Constitution, like a number of states, had a provision which suggested an individual right to keep and bear arms ("The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person and property....shall not be called into question....")

Why, exactly, a variance between the Federal Constitution and the State on only the Second Amendment would justify succession but no other difference would is a bit of a puzzler. As is why approving a Constitution containing a provision that is functionally equivalent to a number of other states means that the Federal Government agrees that that provision is binding on the US.

Anyway--here are the Statehood Documents of Montana (Starting on page 2281) (I love Google Books) (I just looked at this quickly--so I may be missing something. But I note that the arguments that I saw about this were conspicuous for their failure to actually quote any language of the Compact).

--Philistine

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

But that raises all kinds of new issues. Can the US make any promises it wants to gain a state, then say it doesn't have to honor them because it has a bigger army? What would be the point of a statehood agreement, then?

Well, in a manner of speaking, yes. The statehood agreement is a proxy for subjugation by war. I guarantee you if Montana tried to secede under ANY president you'd have a quelling, during which the media would spin it like all Montanans were David Koresh initiates.

I'm being very two dimensional but I think you get my point. The statehood agreement is null and void in a sense because it was so long ago. There's much too much history SINCE that time. And during that history we have gone FAR away from the notion that these states are SEPARATE in any real meaningful way.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm with you. The statehood agreement should be honored; in fact all US citizens who are not felons should be required to take handgun/safety just like they should all be mandated to take drivers training.

I will be taking such a class because even though I am against the usage of handguns personally I am infavor of gun rights. I also feel it is the responsibility of every American citizen to learn to use a rifle. Not only out of tradition, but because the law says that we are militia and could be called upon to defend this country.

If ever I should hear Gabriel's trumpet sound in the call to defend Liberty, be assured I shall answer with Ragnarok in my heart and Mjolnir in my hand.....http://www.vincelewis.net/20mm.html

FF

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by erooMynohtnA

That's the kind of Christianity and Judaism I can get behind.

Thanks for pointing out my typo you cheesehead! Seriously though, both Christianity and Judaism have er...reservations about homosexuality. Islam too. In fact I cannot think of a single religion that doesnt have some prohibition against homosexuality.

Rep to you

FF

PS: How is life in WI? Its been so long since I've been.

[Inquartata]

Heh, it's touching to see Fatfencer holding up Strunk and White with the same sort of reverence TDD displays toward the Bible. Really.

One wonders why he believes that a manual written in 1918 should apply to a document written around 130 years before it...or one would, if one didn't know Fatfencer.

One also wonders whether the Holy Writ of Strunk and White would countenance "jew" instead of "Jew".

[fatfencer]

Inquartata;784975]

Heh, it's touching to see Fatfencer holding up Strunk and White with the same sort of reverence TDD displays toward the Bible. Really.

Your hyperbole goes too far. I mention it solely because it is within eyesight of my monitor at all times. The Bible IS the only Holy Writ. You infidel....

One wonders why he believes that a manual written in 1918 should apply to a document written around 130 years before it...or one would, if one didn't know Fatfencer.

Because it should!!! No seriously English was quite different then. It's not hard to believe a bunch of guys were attempting to wax poetic either.... hence the abundance of commas.

One also wonders whether the Holy Writ of Strunk and White would countenance "jew" instead of "Jew".

It would likely have been "jew" in 1918 rather than "Jew". THey were not as well thought of as they are now. They have a more effective lobby.

FF

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

The statehood agreement is null and void in a sense because it was so long ago. There's much too much history SINCE that time.

While I agree with you about most other things, this statement here seems like one of the cliche arguments used by the anti gun lobby. "But the Constitution was written so long ago, it really doesn't even apply anymore!"

Originally Posted by fatfencer

And during that history we have gone FAR away from the notion that these states are SEPARATE in any real meaningful way.

That's a shame, really. It's not how it was supposed to be. That interstate commerce clause really screwed up the founding fathers' vision beyond what they ever could have predicted.

[fatfencer]

AndrewH;785029]

While I agree with you about most other things, this statement here seems like one of the cliche arguments used by the anti gun lobby. "But the Constitution was written so long ago, it really doesn't even apply anymore!"

Precisely. If you read 36 Strategems of War(Chinese) you'll find that one of the best ways to get rid of a neighboring enemy is to pinpoint their cultural foundations and ERODE them. Show me a man long married and I'll show you his wife's point of view verbatim!!!

Show me a country where power needs to shift and I'll bring you crime. Crime strikes terror. Fear is the mother of fascism. Give me(the govt) your guns and Ill(the govt) keep you safe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHETHsG0WVk

That's a shame, really. It's not how it was supposed to be. That interstate commerce clause really screwed up the founding fathers' vision beyond what they ever could have predicted

The founding fathers wanted everyone to be self sufficient, own a farm, trade freely with minimal taxation. Grow your own food, make your own hooch, build your own home. It's interesting you mentioned how the 'interstate commerce clause' manages to destroy things. We recently did it again with NAFTA.

We wonder why we have border problems.... when the perception is that the border is a mere formality we have a huge uprising of illegals pouring over our borders. On the Mexican side, in large letters it says: La frontera es una cicatriz en la tierra. It means: The border is a scar on the land.

One of the things in World Politics 101 is the issue of sovereignty. Part of sovereignty is the ability to insure the integrity of our borders. The uberwealthy on both sides of the aisle have conspired to weaken our borders, take our guns or legislate them to death.

First our land, then our guns. Sounds conspiratorial doesn't it? I tell you the current US vibe is very similar to the Meiji period when swords were legislated out of existence during the reign of a puppet Emperor.

Once they've finished turning us into sheeple we wont mind so much getting boned in the booty by a man in a plaid dress.

What's it going to take for the government to realize we need more than a pathetic reacharound while the screwups in power get 787 BILLION?

The government NEEDS to subsidize new companies dedicated to green energy infrastructure. That solves two problems, jobs and energy dependence... three if you count our detriment to the environment. The govt needs to MANDATE handgun/firearm safety for all citizens not currently felons.

We should get tax credits/stimulus refunds for hunting down gangbangers. Aryan Nation, Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Tongs, etc.

Whack 'em and Stack 'em I say!!!

Fatfencer

PS: Illegals should be given 5 days to leave the country and apply for citizenship. If they dont leave they need to be rounded up and shipped to build a large wall where our border with Mexico is. OR we should drive them all the way to Chiapas and erect a much smaller wall there and annex Mexico.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

It would likely have been "jew" in 1918 rather than "Jew". THey were not as well thought of as they are now. They have a more effective lobby.

FF

What about sentence fragments and missing apostrophes?

I mean, not that you'd ever pen either solecism ( cough*Gerrie Baumgart thread*cough ).

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

It's interesting you mentioned how the 'interstate commerce clause' manages to destroy things. We recently did it again with NAFTA.

Well, what I was referring to was the use by Congress of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution to gain more and more power over the states, for reasons that are barely related to interstate commerce at all.

Highway funding is actually another big tool used by Congress to gain power over the states. For example, the states have the right to determine their own drinking age. But the federal government said that if any state didn't make it 21, they would lose their highway funding. It's been used in a similar manner in other cases too.

As for NAFTA... well as a degree holding unemployed economist, I'm in favor of free trade agreements. But that's going to have to be another thread.

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What about sentence fragments and missing apostrophes?

I mean, not that you'd ever pen either solecism ( cough*Gerrie Baumgart thread*cough ).

jews don't lobby for those. Cost considerations I guess.

Leave us not confuse speedy typing and general laziness for anything resembling ineptitude.

Otherwise I'll think you are accusing me of having written the USFA rulebook!

This means war!

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

Well, what I was referring to was the use by Congress of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution to gain more and more power over the states, for reasons that are barely related to interstate commerce at all.

Highway funding is actually another big tool used by Congress to gain power over the states. For example, the states have the right to determine their own drinking age. But the federal government said that if any state didn't make it 21, they would lose their highway funding. It's been used in a similar manner in other cases too.

As for NAFTA... well as a degree holding unemployed economist, I'm in favor of free trade agreements. But that's going to have to be another thread.

Riiiiiight so you think NAFTA doesnt have its own set of backdoor BS attached to it? I too am an economist, but I think economics is a poor social science when it doesnt consider long term strategy.

FF

[Lady Quindecim]

Hmmm... there is no gun in my house. There used to be, but they have to be kept from me. Just about everyone 'round here has a rifle/shotgun and many have a pistol.

Gun control is regulation, not abolition. With the wildlife at our doorstep, we frail, weak humans need something to protect ourselves.

We have a lock on the door. It is up out of my reach. It was put in the same time the guns were removed.
If you (whomever) make the effort to come to my house and you need something, take it and replace it when you can. Keys are in the truck, just put some gas in it when you bring it back.
If you are coming to my house to kill me (or worse), I cannot stop you.
But know this. When justice is being served here, we look after our own. If we need to bring you in to the city because of some crime you have committed, they will not tie you up, because they will make sure you stop kicking before they toss your corps in the back of the truck with the game.

Personally, guns scare me spitless.

(Note, I am not commenting on all the other, off-topic posts.)

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

Hauptman;784910]

You are such a disingenuous little jew-****.(you're right your not an atheist-****!!) You were answering Beeblebrox and in your own post mention 'bible' 50 times.




Bull**** alert. There were no straw men. I neither misrepresented nor distorted your position. Misusing the strawman response is however, a type of strawman. The best way to deal with a strawman is to clarify your original meaning INLIGHT of, IN CONTRAST WITH your opponent's claims. I suspect you will have a hard time with this since I quoted you verbatim in my responses.

Inquartata has done this forum a horse**** service by misusing responses to fallacy. He knows better and so do I. But unlike me, he ENJOYS watching, and even SEEDING the misuse of argumentation. It's not enough to merely say 'strawman'. See wikipedia for help on how to actually use the fallacy responses.



You've had your fair share of these in other threads. My 'caps' of the term JEWS should have reminded you that I have a very long memory. Freudian slip indeed. I remind you calling someone an anti-Semite is also an ad hominem.

How's this for adhominem... you are a ****ing crybaby. I suppose I'd whine too if Fiddler on the Roof were somehow representative of MY culture. And Neil Diamond....ouch.



Look, I know forgiveness is the domain of Christianity and not Judaism, but someday... someday your going to have to forgive me for beta-testing your mother.

Fatfencer

PS: Stop jacking this thread. Its about gun control. You and TDD and Beeble can argue the merits of Christendom in another thread perhaps?

PPS: Not to be a Shylock, but instead of the usual pound of flesh can I have oh $50 for teaching you how to argue? You know, services rendered. Give a little love back to the community.

Your eloquence and Christian piety serve as an example to us all. Well done!!

[fatfencer]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Your eloquence and Christian piety serve as an example to us all. Well done!!

Hey I didn't say I was Jesus... I said I'd like to be like him. You remind me of how difficult that is with people like you around.

That said, don't you have some Bar Mitzvah to go to...lots of young boys for you to play with....

FF

[Fencer X and Y]

I've been ignoring FF for a while now. Mostly because he says the same things over and over again and his use of Font sizes really annoys me. But since Hauptman keeps quoting him I sort of read some of his posts. Wow.
Okay well I know that I shouldn't feed the trolls (how many posts start out like that) but here goes.

Originally Posted by Fatfencer

I don't know where it says in the New Testament you can beat your Wife. Must be a Pentateuch/Jew thing? Hauptman? Maybe you can shed some light on your culture. Seriously though. Most religions dont say its ok to beat your wife. My point is that Christianity is not alone in doctrinal abuse... including when an Atheist says that Christianity advocates something evil when it clearly doesn't. History is religion, all religions, misapplied.

I have never ever read the new testament and I know this one. It's in the letters of Paul (who us Jew-**** better know as Saul) Ephesians 5:22.

Originally Posted by fatfencer

PS: You will also find nothing in the Bible that ADVOCATES slavery, though you will find historical examples of many things the Jews were doing that are now not considered... Kosher. Things like genocide, idol worship, slavery, etc.

Ehesians also advocates the use of slavery. But really the use of slavery comes from the old testament Noah got drunk, his son laughed at him etc... I'm sure anyone who's ever even heard of the bible or anyone who has ever read a history book knows the story. I'm not surprised you don't FF.

Originally Posted by fatfencer

PPS: Is it really so envogue to loathe Christianity? If so why doesnt that loathing have such a convenient name like 'anti-
Semitism'?

This makes no sense. envogue...anti-semitism. I thought you weren't an antisemite (you calling Hauptman a jew-***** kinda disproves that theory but never mind that) What are you trying to say that anyone who wears fashionable clothes and disagrees with Christian theology should be called an anti-semite? Why?

Originally Posted by FF

So enlighten me. You think that an Atheist/Agnostic who, since he believes in nothing and thus is more successful at living with his 'faith', is somehow BETTER than a person who genuinely struggles to live according to a set of standards he has trouble adapting to?

Someone who would group Atheists and Agnostics in one group should be talking about neither. Again I'm trying to analyze this sentence and it means nothing. You've emphasized "better" but for a real agnostic the definition of a moral better or worse is meaningless and for an atheist it does not mean what you assume it to mean. And what does it mean that a Christian has trouble adapting to a set of standards? What set of standards? Not being Gay? And anyway the whole point of Christianity is going away from the rigidity of Jewish legality. A real christian won't have trouble adapting to anything. It's only the Jews who say following G-d's way is hard. The Christians say that once you truly accept Jesus into your heart doing good things will be the only thing you will want to do. Don't know that much about theology? I'm not surprised since in none of my religious classes did we ever talk about "how k3wl Kung-Fu and TKD is because you get to kick all the weekend warior N00b5 in their heads." (As a side note, have you ever actually heard yourself speak?)

Originally Posted by FF

If so, I find Atheism/Agnosticism the highest form of cowardly disingenuousness. Cowardly because Atheism, by your innuendo, has such low standards for what it hopes to achieve.

I'm sorry, you say that you don't use Straw Man arguments and yet you use somebodys innuendo as an argument against them? Do you understand the problem I'm having here?

Originally Posted by FF

Disingenuous because they use Science as a crutch to hide the fact that they can't even begin to fathom the emotional implications of a Supreme Deity that may actually care for them, despite their plain-faced idiocy.

The only thing I can't fathom is that there's a Supreme Deity that actually cares about you.

Originally Posted by FF

They'd rather go play D&D and eventually work for the Government developing biological weapons.

.....(that means I'm speechless, and not in a good way)

Originally Posted by FF

There is a deep scarring irony here....many of History's greatest Scientists loved God very deeply, though they could not prove that He exists.

That's about as ironic as rain on your wedding day.

Originally Posted by fatty

How's this for adhominem... you are a ****ing crybaby. I suppose I'd whine too if Fiddler on the Roof were somehow representative of MY culture. And Neil Diamond....ouch.

Yes, Neil Diamond is what everyone thinks of when they think of a jew.

PS I really don't know why you keep putting PS's in your posts they are stupid and annoying please stop.

PPS I really don't care what you have to say so please don't respond to this. You're on my ignore list and the only reason I even wrote this is because Hauptman keeps quoting you.
PPPS Please no one quote FF

PPPPS Yes I see the irony in saying that I don't care about what you have to say after responding for 10 minutes to the things that you say. Oh well I'm a hypocrite I'm sure you can attribute it to me being a jew


PPPPPS because this post wouldn't be complete without it:

I beta-tested your mother. It was weird cause I've never had intercourse with a dog before.
See how unfunny jokes that have been used a million times are? That's why Carlos Mencia isn't funny

[fatfencer]

Fencer X and Y;785679]I've been ignoring FF for a while now. Mostly because he says the same things over and over again and his use of Font sizes really annoys me. But since Hauptman keeps quoting him I sort of read some of his posts. Wow.
Okay well I know that I shouldn't feed the trolls (how many posts start out like that) but here goes.

You call it "ignoring" I call it denying you getting yer butt cheeks lovingly caressed by my metric tons of intellectual whoopazz.

I have never ever read the new testament and I know this one. It's in the letters of Paul (who us Jew-**** better know as Saul) Ephesians 5:22.

This was your response to Hauptmans "Christian old fashioned doctrine says its ok to beat your wife. Your education failed you. Youre a jew. I'm sure you know an attorney(Outliers). Sue your gradeschool for failing you so. I'l be happy to testify on your behalf.

Ephesians 5:22-24 ---And further you will submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. You wives shall submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his Body, the Church. He gave his life to be Her Savior. As the church submits to Christ so you wives must submit to your husbands.

Ephesians 28: In the same way Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. No one hates his body but lovingly cares for it.

So where oh where does it even hint at wife beating is ok here in Ephesians? I know its not your book. BUT!!! If you say you KNOW something. Then know. Otherwise go see if Siemens has any more Zyklon left over. Surely just one more dose? Hell, maybe theres some Jim Jones special broo Koolaid somewhere.

READ YOU STUPID MORON!!!

Ephesians also advocates the use of slavery

.

No but it does say that one being a Christian does not free them from their Earthly life. If you are a slave, then you are a slave. If free, then free. But all are free spiritually in Christ Jesus.

But really the use of slavery comes from the old testament Noah got drunk, his son laughed at him etc... I'm sure anyone who's ever even heard of the bible or anyone who has ever read a history book knows the story. I'm not surprised you don't FF.

Dude!!! Genesis is a jew-book. Duh it was a part fo the Torah LONG before it was a Christian chapter. Seriously though. My point was Christianity, due to its Jewish Origins, has flaws when looked at from today's perspective. BUT the New Testament has nothing in it that CONDONES slavery or any such nonsense.

This makes no sense. envogue...anti-semitism. I thought you weren't an antisemite (you calling Hauptman a jew-***** kinda disproves that theory but never mind that) What are you trying to say that anyone who wears fashionable clothes and disagrees with Christian theology should be called an anti-semite? Why?

You should read my posts thoroughly. You misunderstoood what I wrote. However, I wouldnt call Neil Diamond or Hasids "fashionable". Hauptman is one of those JF's in the same way I might be a poor driver cuz of my slant eyes...get it? Don't get yer yarmulke in a bunch. No anti-Semitism here. Call it dis-poetic license.

Someone who would group Atheists and Agnostics in one group should be talking about neither. Again I'm trying to analyze this sentence and it means nothing. You've emphasized "better" but for a real agnostic the definition of a moral better or worse is meaningless and for an atheist it does not mean what you assume it to mean.

I'm being simplistic because it suits me. Simple doesnt mean wrong. it's just shorthand.

The Christians say that once you truly accept Jesus into your heart doing good things will be the only thing you will want to do. Don't know that much about theology?

I find that this sentiment is pulled out when a Christian treats a Jew in kind for how he was treated. The way i see it you can't ***** when your motto is "An eye for an eye" just because mine is supposed to be "turn the other cheek". I dont let people take advantage of me being nice. I treat them how they wish to be treated. If they act like a bunch of asinine, Down Syndrome ridden, spiteful little haggis-es, then I take that to mean they wish to be treated as such. To do otherwise is well, wrong.

I'm not surprised since in none of my religious classes did we ever talk about "how k3wl Kung-Fu and TKD is because you get to kick all the weekend warior N00b5 in their heads." (As a side note, have you ever actually heard yourself speak?)

Regularly, in TKD classes/Spec Ops training all over the country over the years. And rarely, in those classes, did I everr talk religion. Why in religious contexts would you ever expect me to whip out a sidekick demo? Yes, I AM better than all of you in MA. But then, I don't expect otherwise. It's FENCING. It's like me walking ito a Nursing Home with a bunch of old Caucasian elderly women and saying I can whip all'yall. Of course I can. So what?

I'm sorry, you say that you don't use Straw Man arguments and yet you use somebodys innuendo as an argument against them? Do you understand the problem I'm having here?

Not really, here's what Wikipedia says on the matter. They specifically address this very thing.

Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true.

The only thing I can't fathom is that there's a Supreme Deity that actually cares about you

One thing about the Scientific Method is that it allows me to see you as you truly are. Fodder for my intellectual LoveGun. Let's hear it for Deduction and Reasoning!!!

That's about as ironic as rain on your wedding day.

Should I have known that Alanis was Jewish? She was great on You Cant do That on Television....not much since though.

Yes, Neil Diamond is what everyone thinks of when they think of a jew.

Actually, sorta. Otherwise I think of everybody's favorite uber Mensch... Bernard W Madoff. Theres my new poster-Jew.

PPPPS Yes I see the irony in saying that I don't care about what you have to say after responding for 10 minutes to the things that you say. Oh well I'm a hypocrite I'm sure you can attribute it to me being a jew

Gawd you are SUCH an Anti-Semitic prick. Grow up. The jews really DID die in the Holocaust...its not an exaggerated event. I promise!!

See how unfunny jokes that have been used a million times are? That's why Carlos Mencia isn't funny

I'm sorry... you're no Jack Kennedy.

FF

PS: Since you arent reading this I thought it would be apropos to post it where you will read it.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Lady Quindecim

Gun control is regulation, not abolition.

1) The former is a prerequisite for the latter.

2) Historically, the former almost always seems to transform into the latter.

3) If you read the statements of the heavy hitters in the gun control movement, they specifically avow that it is their intent to transform the former into the eventual latter.