That's how I feel. I'm not going to engage with our resident pedant about the specific nomenclature, nor am I a firearms expert.
Bonus points to him for working in the talking point 'define an assault' rifle when / where it's not particularly relevant to the point I was making in the second paragraph, which is that a lot of gun enthusiasts fetishize guns to the point that political ads are being run featuring candidates posing with their arsenals. Which is some some bizarre shit. I don't care if it's an 'assault rifle' or some other gun, if you are taking pictures with it you have an unhealthy attachment IMO.
Results 331 to 340 of 381
Thread: Gun Control
-
06-22-2022, 12:06 PM #331Eat Donuts!
-
06-22-2022, 12:38 PM #332
Brian Kemp, Governor of Georgia, ran commercials in his election campaign with a shot gun……and a young man who wanted to date one of his daughters. Some might call it an attempt at humor. I find it disturbing, as did many other.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...-daughters.hln
He got elected.
-
06-22-2022, 12:53 PM #333
If Greitens gets elected in Missouri, it may be time to re-locate from that state.
...he went up late, and I was already up there.
-
06-22-2022, 04:02 PM #334
Then again, even the late Todd Akin couldn't get elected in Missouri.
-
06-22-2022, 04:30 PM #335
Missouri is great except for every single thing about it.
-
06-22-2022, 05:11 PM #336
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 2,984
-
06-22-2022, 08:41 PM #337
Oops. Shots fired.
...he went up late, and I was already up there.
-
06-22-2022, 09:20 PM #338
-
06-22-2022, 09:26 PM #339
-
06-22-2022, 09:50 PM #340
Not sure where you’re going with this, but it was the first battle of the Revolutionary War, and I guess it was the result of rising tensions between the colonists (and Massachusetts in particular) that were technically part of a monarch, but had practically been independent and King George III who began (trying) to exert more authority over them. But, like I said I don’t know what you’re getting at. I’m assuming it’s a rhetorical question, but I’m not sure for what. The right to bear arms was not included in the original Constitution. Nothing that happened during the war made them feel compelled to initially include it. It was amended later, and it didn’t have anything at all to do with the Battle of Lexington/Concord. It mostly had to do with a concern of not wanting states to try and overpower and disarm another state. There were other reasons too, but that was the main one.
And yes, UVA could do what the wanted. So could Princeton. And what the person who authored the constitution wanted to do was to ban guns from Princeton, and what the author of the Declaration wanted to do was ban guns from UVA. So it’s safe to conclude that they would not be opposed to the idea of gun regulations since…yunno…they themselves imposed regulations.Last edited by xubrew; 06-22-2022 at 10:02 PM.
"You can't fix stupid." Ron White
Bookmarks