Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Alejandro Rojas wrote:The maniac is going to slaughter people whether or not Shyster has a 30-round clip or not. Taking it away from Shyster will save zero lives.
Liberals think with emotion, not logic.
columbia wrote:Acknowledging that there is no publiic good to have you walking around with 30 round clips and that the tradeoff of you getting off on the thrill of that just might not be worth the danger of same maniac using the same to slaughter people.
Alejandro Rojas wrote:Liberals think with emotion, not logic.
Shyster wrote:I do not agree that there is no public good to “30 round clips.”
Shyster wrote:I do not “get off” on carrying a firearm.
Shyster wrote:Also, a position is not representative of “common sense” merely because you happen to hold it.
Shyster wrote:An exception cannot swallow the rule.
columbia wrote:Based on your posting history on the subject, it seems to rise to the level of a fetish.
Maybe it's not and you just have a PR problem like the NRA?
shafnutz05 wrote:
Pandering at its finest
shafnutz05 wrote:
Pandering at its finest
Alejandro Rojas wrote:shafnutz05 wrote:
Pandering at its finest
Notice the very purposeful racial and gender rainbow presented.
Indian-American female
African-American male
White female
White male
Alejandro Rojas wrote:The maniac is going to slaughter people whether or not Shyster has a 30-round clip or not. Taking it away from Shyster will save zero lives.
Liberals think with emotion, not logic.
pfim wrote:Alejandro Rojas wrote:The maniac is going to slaughter people whether or not Shyster has a 30-round clip or not. Taking it away from Shyster will save zero lives.
Liberals think with emotion, not logic.
I doubt the purpose of the proposal is to take away 30 round clips from Shyster.
mac5155 wrote:
But it's going to, and the maniac will still get them.
Pitt87 wrote:Factorial wrote:Pitt87 wrote:Just looked at my first paycheck of the new year an wanted thank our President for the pay cut today. No tax increases on middle class didn't even last long enough to be inaugurated for a second term.
What short memories people have. The GOP House was against extending the payroll tax holiday to 2012 but it made it through eventually and neither the Democrats or the GOP had plans to extend it in 2013.
No need to be indirect, but you should be sure you fully understand my comment before you assume I was referring to the payroll tax... I consider myself a pretty meticulous tax planner, so I was prepared for a check-based increase. What I was not prepared for was virtually no consideration in the middle-income rates. It is this administrations' tax policy, that, over the last 4 years, has targeted those that they claim to protect. Payroll tax is one component of the total tax that Barack Obama committed both before and after the election -- check the tape, to use his words -- to rallying his party around the in support of the middle class' 'share', only to completely abandon them in negotiations. As a result, revenues are up, spending cuts have been suspended, and everyone with a job, even those that are careful tax planners like myself, have a nice wet chunk taken out of their gross pay with little recourse to make up the deficit.... at least those that have higher rates aren't impacted until their first quarter payment is due...
Publicly, he espoused a commitment to cutting total taxes on 160 million Americans in the 'middle class', yet he managed to levy an immediate cashflow out of those paychecks immediately, while artfully neglecting to resolve the tax issue for the group that can least likely absorb a 2% tax hike.
pfim wrote:mac5155 wrote:
But it's going to, and the maniac will still get them.
How?
Alejandro Rojas wrote:pfim wrote:mac5155 wrote:
But it's going to, and the maniac will still get them.
How?
1) Shyster, a law abiding citizen, will be precluded from owning a 30 round clip (should one exist).
2) The maniac will purchase the now illegal 30 round clip (should one exist) illegally.
tifosi77 wrote:And I think it is partly because of this basic element of not getting it that results in many of the 'pro' and 'con' advocates simply speaking past each other. The cons can't get past the seeming absurdity of 30-round magazines, and the pros can't understand why anyone would question why a lawful citizen wouldn't want a 30-round magazine available to defend their sovereignty. (I guess that latter point might be more accurately characterized as wondering why it's anyone else's business what one thinks is appropriate in determining how to protect themselves.)
.
Spoiler:
columbia wrote:Are you cool with the guy next door having a bazooka? Maybe a tank or an armed drone patrolling the neighborhood?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests