Page 1 of 1
Posted on January 23 at 6:56 p.m.
Just do everything we can to keep criminals from obtaining and using guns of ANY kind.
Don't concern yourself with the types and amounts of guns possessed by law-abiding, sane, citizens.
That includes calling my guns an "arsenal," just to be inflammatory. Also don't demand I tell you why I "need" this or that type of gun. You'll just mock the answer because you don't own a gun, or want to.
On The Kalashnikov and I
Posted on January 21 at 7:45 p.m.
You missed this from my post:
"BTW, invoking slavery in an attempt to belittle the exercise of my right to bear arms will not work. I never supported slavery and never will."
Also, claiming our forefathers were slave owners so everything they wrote is irrelevant doesn't make sense. The right to bear arms was developed as a counter to a tyrannical government. Some may say "that will never happen." I say really?
As far as freedom of expression you missed this:
"I support ALL of the rights afforded to us by the constitution."
I also typed this:
"You may disagree, the First Amendment guarantees that."
Also, you can't discredit me by implying I am racist, so passe...
We obviously have differing points of view. Don't be cliche. Stop insinuating I'm racist, I'm not. Don't intimate I'm a violent person because I own a few guns, I'm not. Let's be "rational" as you suggest.
Am I irrational because I don't agree with you? Unchallenged statements of fact? Please enlighten me...
On On Guns and Safety
Posted on January 21 at 7 p.m.
Also Volok, you better check yourself about the rights I am willing to defend. You have no idea the sacrifices I have made, and continue to make for this great country and all it's flaws.
Posted on January 21 at 6:57 p.m.
I support ALL of the rights afforded to us by the constitution. Even your right to say things I don't agree with.
I think you should look at the Constitution again:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This amendment has TWO different aspects it reads the federal government will not infringe on "well regulated militias" OR "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms."
You may disagree, the First Amendment guarantees that.
BTW, invoking slavery in an attempt to belittle the exercise of my right to bear arms will not work. I never supported slavery and never will.
Next I suppose we can debate the definition of "arsenal."
But you are dodging my basic premise: why take guns away from law-abiding people? Citizens who are not a threat to anyone, and have broken no law. How will limiting the types of guns or capacity of magazines prevent mentally ill or criminally evil people from doing horrible things?
If you tell me how this works, I'll give you my guns.
Just declare this is actually a continuation of an epic gun-grabber campaign pursuing a fantasy in which there are NO GUNS, nobody disagrees with each other and criminals actually obey the law.
Posted on January 21 at 5:58 p.m.
You don't like guns?
Don't buy one.
You don't like people that own guns?
Don't befriend them.
Don't believe the US Constitution gives me the right to own a gun?
Too bad, it does.
Don't worry about what kind of guns I have or how many rounds my magazines hold. If you aren't a criminal threatening me or my family, a paper target, or a tyrant infringing on my liberties, my guns are no threat to you.
Posted on August 27 at 7:57 a.m.
A lawful gun owner and carrier may have had a chance to intervene in Aurora. That's a fact.
Criminals don't obey the law (hence the label "criminal"), so they will acquire and carry guns unlawfully when they choose. That's also a fact.
You will NEVER deny lawful gun ownership for lawful citizens. Not even with your ludicrous, mocking, childish article...also a fact.
On A Radical Gun-Control Proposal
Posted on August 25 at 8:16 a.m.
If you are on the ABR with a responsibility to determine whether or not architectural designs are appropriate for the city, and are unable or unwilling to decide because your opinions (no matter the topic) conflict with a corporate executive...please quit.
On Chick-fil-A Fallout Continues
Posted on August 25 at 8:03 a.m.
C'mon! An adult, in a position with some responsibility, isn't able to make a simple decision regarding the appearance of a patio because his ability to reason has been clouded by personal opinion about whether or not guys should marry each other?
Afterwards you claim you recused yourself so Chik-Fil-A will get a fair assessment of their patio? Thanks for saving them from your self-righteous, holier-than-thou point of view.
Just resign and we'll use a Magic 8-ball to decide what the patio will look like.
On When Abstinence Is Not the Best Policy
Previous Month | Next Month