On 1/10/2013 4:46 PM, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:01:28 -0600,
wrote:

DISTRO PRUNED

Delvin Benet wrote:
On the surface, this seems like it could be a reasonable proposition,
but it's worth noting that Adam Lanza didn't buy the guns he used to
commit his massacre, and Nancy Lanza almost certainly would have
"passed" a background check. In other words, if this proposal had
been in effect prior to the Newtown massacre, it would have had no
effect in preventing the massacre.

This is the classic illogic of hysterical leftists: use an event to
try to enact a fix that would not have prevented the event.

Hmm , the guys that do the crimes are already breaking laws ... what makes
anybody think that they'll obey any new ones ?

Listen up ****wit. Apply your reasoning to stop signs. Guy flies
through a stop sign and kills someone, so you sit there like a six
year old and "reason" that A. stop sign laws are useless. B. No new
stop signs should be put up owing to the fact (in your simple mind)
that stop signs don't always work.

Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

When do you plan to start?


Good to see that you get the name-calling out of the way before you
launch into nonsense.

You're confusing weapon and offense.

To bend your statements more toward reality, your suggestion is more
like shutting down the DMV and making it illegal to own a car
because someone might run a stop sign.

And I think you're on to something. If your interest is in reducing
deaths, banning cars would be far more productive than anything
you could do about guns...for the children.
And a LOT easier to enforce.

Cut up your driver's license...DO IT NOW!!!