Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II

Luscious Lars Wrote: 9 hours ago (5:43 PM)
Then why don't we ban cars from the parking lots of bars and restaurants which serve booze? Seems as if that's the same thing you are asking of guns. Make the drunks take mass transit to the bar or near the bar and they can walk the rest of the way. Why let them drive a car there, get drunk, then get in their car and drive away?
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II

Luscious Lars Wrote: 9 hours ago (5:37 PM)
There are plenty of people in America, a majority, who still do not believe in punishing the many innocent for the violent crimes of the very few. Why should law abiding gun owners be punished when some nutcase kills his mom, steals her guns, then kills a bunch of kids and teachers at a school? Why should we punish law abiding drivers when some drunk who has lost his license from a previous DWI takes his wife's car and causes an accident which kills a number of people. What? We don't punish law abiding drivers for that crime? Shazam!
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II

Luscious Lars Wrote: 9 hours ago (5:33 PM)
But a person with a carry permit, in most states, cannot drink and carry. They risk losing their carry permit at the very least. There are some states which already do allow guns to be carried into places which serve alcohol. Can you site any instances where people who were carrying in a liquor serving establishment cause some wrong doing, ericynot1? Or do you believe it's dangerous just because you believe something will happen, to someone, somewhere, sometime, for some reason? I like to look at the data first. Data shows that the chances are minuscule and the risk is negligible. Besides, if someone is carrying and can't go into bar or restaurant which serves alcohol, he/she is forced to leave their firearm in their car, where it can be stolen relatively easily.
A poster below wrote:[ I had a great idea for a commercial-- Two people are on a dark street, in a dark city full of crime. The voice-over and some images juxtapose two choices about how you're going to defend yourself: a handgun (one person has a firearm), or a ban on guns (the other person has a piece of paper). Then it asks the question: which one are criminals more afraid of (the person with the paper is surrounded by criminals closing in on them). The commercial ends with the person with the handgun hearing someone scream somewhere in the distance.] Good one. There was a cartoon where a bad guy is knocking on doors pretending to be conducting a survey for the NRA and whether the homeowner supports the Second Amendment. For the homeowner who said "yes", the bad guy said "thank you" and moved on. When he came to the liberal homeowner who said, "No, I don't think anyone should own a gun", the bad guy pulled out his own gun and said, "give me all of your valuables and money". That's not exactly 100% accurate but you get the gist. I wish I had saved that one.
They're just hoping to finish off the people who didn't get aborted via Planned Parenthood and grew up via failed parenthood.
More like they will "pull a job" and that job will be to steal your money and belongings or the cash from a convenience/liquor store.
It's not fair to start looking at CCW effects for Chicago. How many permits have been granted so far? How hard is the city and state government making it to actually get a permit? How many permit applicants are there and how many of those have been able to attend the required training and take the testing? Until we have those numbers and there becomes a more significant number of people who actually have a permit and are carrying, the crime rate numbers won't change due to that variable. Now, once a couple of thugs are shot by permit holders in self defense, the message might get out there and the murders and violent crimes might stand a chance of decline to some extent. Time will tell.
I believe that the whole country of Mexico has gun laws about as strict as Chicago, but there seems to be no shortage of full military weaponry and other types of firearms for the Cartels in Mexico.
Oops. Strict gun control laws are in Chicago and IL, not Dallas and Texas. Typing too fast.
Let's follow this guy's logic. Which city has a higher per capita murder rate, Chicago or Dallas. Chicago. Which city and the state it exists in have strict gun control laws, Chicago and IL, or Dallas and TX? Dallas and TX. So are we to believe then, that criminals prefer to get guns in places like TX where they are easier to get, but then drive all the way to Chicago to commit their crimes instead of committing those same crimes in Dallas or Houston, TX? Are violent crimes harder to commit in large Texas cities? Could it be that criminals fear armed citizens in large Texas cities more than they fear unarmed citizens in Chicago? Hmmm. Simple logic should provide answers to those questions. I wonder how lowiqnumbers will answer? She lacks common sense and logic.
Not all that many years ago, Chicago had a "gang task force". Sounds pretty militaristic in name, at least. They were supposed to work with the gangs to try and reduce the number of violent crimes the gangs were committing. As it turned out, some members of the gang task force were on the take, trading guns for drugs and vice versa WITH THE GANGS! They had to disband the task force. That's just how liberals roll in the big cities controlled by libs.
Previous 11 - 20 Next