OT: US is a Weird Place to Live

You know there is absolutely no point in trying to reason with him? None at all. I see he already replied by doubling down on his premise without responding to the issue at all.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

I like this one.

?We?ll shortly be introducing extended and drum magazines which will allow up to thirty minutes of circular argument without reloading.

?Obviously we?re going to continue seeking a ban on apathy-piercing bullets, but we support Congress?s goal to ensure silencers are fitted to everyone talking about gun control.?

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Can you explain your questions? How exactly is "Why?" relevant? What is it you are looking for?

Is interest income taxed at a lower rate? I believe you are thinking of capital gains.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Obviously you have no interest in learning, or even thinking, but guns

*do* solve problems.

BTW, I never whipped out my gun and shot things.

Only a third of the people itemize because they don't have deductions that exceed the standard deduction. How does it "help only the rich"? Are you saying that 1/3 of the people are "rich"? Makes sense 1/3 are rich, and 1/2 pay no income tax. You lefty weenies (I don't use the world "liberal" - they don't exist anymore) want to soak the "rich". IOW, everyone who contributes has to pay even more, for those too lazy to work.

Until those, too, is banned. Nope, not going to happen.

Exactly what are you snorting? There is no such law proposed.

Neither are 99% of all other weapons.

That's a good enough reason but certainly not the only.

I knew as soon as I mentioned 'rich' you'd have some issue. This seems about right to me, (I don't know that much about tax policy.)

George H.

A great deal more of the physical senses also. You can barely see a

32nd floor window, much less identify which one it is, much less hit it. Pistols would not be able to get a bullet up there with much kinetic energy remaining either.

The crowd would have seen other people standing in their windows watching the concert. Those windows would be closed and the occupants would not hear a sound and wouldn't know what was happening, so they would have continued to stand there. Lots of people would have misidentified them as shooters.

George, get out of this argument. You are wasting your time. You are dealing with a bunch of trolls who have no interest in your views. They are just boiling your blood and wasting your time.

There is nothing you can do to change things. Your efforts are wasted. This focus your energy inwards. Waste of energy. That is bad.

Work on the things you can do instead. Put your energy outwards. Think of your customers. Think what they need or want. You have much better things to do. Do them.

Self Discipline starts in

3...2...1 Now

Well there's no point in trying to reason with me either when I say, 'This is the way the Constitution was meant to work' and you say, 'It doesn't work like that.' You kind of miss the point that 100 years of Progressiveism is the reason it doesn't.

Yes, I do. You think "rich" is the same as "pays taxes". That's clearly ignorant. Of course, by some definition we're all "rich" but that's hardly a useful starting point for politics.

If you're paying taxes (pervading for yourself an others), you're rich, seems right to you? That's *nuts*.

Clearly! Not much of anything else politically, either.

Anything that starts out that way has nothing of interest in it.

Says the troll.

It's not that I miss the point, I simply don't agree. Gun control is something we need. You can run around every barn in the county and that fact won't change. Rather than try to discuss the issues, you prefer to drop back to denigrating those you are debating with.

The 2nd amendment may have had a purpose when it was written nearly 250 years ago, but that purpose is long outlived. Unrestricted guns are not a good idea and we need to do something to limit the possession of semi-automatic weapons. In fact, I believe it is time to register *all* guns and require training to own and use them, JUST LIKE WE DO FOR OTHER DANGEROUS DEVICES LIKE CARS!

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

No it isn't. You can shout and screen and run around in circles but the Constitution doesn't allow it. ...and for very good reason.

If you don't like it. Amend it. Good luck with that, though.

We already have gun control, there are many types of guns you can't have without a permit or have at all. We need to extend that. Regardless of what the Constitution says, the courts have allowed it. The Constitution is vague in terms of what "bear arms" should mean in the context of full automatic and semi-automatic guns that are used to slay innocent people.

No need, the courts have already indicated the Constitution doesn't mean what you think it means. But be careful. This massacre clearly shows the ludicrousness of thinking we need guns for self defense. This may be the tipping point that gets a Constitutional amendment started and passed.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

I never denigrate anyone. And I was refering to the constitution thread.

On gun control I'd consider licensing if qualification was determined by one's neighbors. If you want a gun, then knock on doors and hand out forms and postage paid envelopes. If a number (determined by your area's population density) of people check the "yes" box then you get a license. There would also be boxes for "no" and "I don't really know the guy." Population density would also determine how close they have to live to you. And training should also be necessary, as accidents seem to kill a lot more than mass shooters.

Each year, your "gun control" evaporates a little more. You're powerless to stop it. You're on the wrong side of the population.

Right. You leftys don't care a crap about the Constitution. It's only an old rag, anyway. Idiot.

tal

e

That sounds pretty restrictive. One semi automatic would mean if you had a semi automatic shotgun, you could not have a semi automatic pistol.

You really ought to be able to have a 12 gauge and a 20 gauge shotgun for t wo classifications of skeet, and the same for shotguns for trap. I am not up on pistol target shooting, but am pretty sure that .22 is one classific ation. And there may be one for 9 mm pistol and another for .45 caliber pi stols. And of course there are .22 rim fire semi automatic rifles for plink ing, and then there are center fire automatic rifles for deer, elk and moos e.

I really do not see the point in restricting the number of guns that a sane person has. And it makes no sense to allow mentally ill people to have on e gun, regardless of whether it is semi automatic or a black powder gun.

Dan

Typo, that should have been "ON semi-automatic weapons". I'm not trying to put details on a viable plan, but clearly people don't need 23 assault weapons.

The mentally ill are already restricted from having guns. The shooter in Las Vegas as well as virtually all the mass shootings we've had were by people who were not judged mentally ill. Clearly there is something wrong with them, but trying to shift the responsibility to the medical profession for keeping us all safe is not going to work.

Guns are not essential to anyone. We can find ways to restrict them to keep them out of the hands of mass shooters and maybe the criminals while we are at it. I'd like to look at the gun laws in other countries. It's not like we need to start from scratch. Kinda like healthcare.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998