Lets do some serious talking about gun laws.

"Because name calling is the hallmark of genius" says the supercilious hypocrite who in one broad stroke called everyone that disagreed with her POV "insane".

FYI, you'd be the clown living in la-la land where you ignore history and fail to fully process the words of your overlords.

For your edification, consider Odumbo's vocal condescension and misplaced affections, and let it be known that we understand, unlike you who doesn't wish to understand, exactly what he means:





Plus, there's Feinstein's shrill cry for total ban on and confiscation of "assault weapons" -- as she wishes to define them:




However, Feinstein and your ilk are so misinformed and ignorant of the facts that you cannot even find a working definition of an "assault weapon" that can be entrusted to petty bureaucrats and politicians to enforce without bias and prejudice.

Now crawl under your bed and process the monstrous reality of their words. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Are you sure she even has a bed and isn't ' dragging a mattress " around behind her into any available alley ?

Not sure if you're aware, but we are not in Nazi Germany.

Again, creating arguments that don't exist. When you're ready to come back to reality, let me know and I'll be happy to discuss. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

Vivienne, hi!

1st: Are you on P411?

2nd: Re the OP topic:

Generally speaking are you acquainted with the "gun control" laws in Mexico?

[COLOR="Black"][SIZE="3"]"Because name calling is the hallmark of genius" says the supercilious hypocrite who in one broad stroke called everyone that disagreed with her POV "insane". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Nah. That is merely all you are able to extract from what I said. Own it, hun. That's all you.

For your edification, consider Odumbo's vocal condescension and misplaced affections, and let it be known that we understand, unlike you who doesn't wish to understand, exactly what he means:

"... it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion ..." Odumbo.

My guess is he's talking about the insane.......and I agree.

"The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer" Odumbo.

And? What does that mean to you?

Plus, there's Feinstein's shrill cry for a total ban on and confiscation of "assault weapons" -- as she wishes to define them:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." Feinstein.

Who cares? It's not going to happen. Ever. The People, with 300 million guns, will not allow it.

However, Feinstein and your ilk are so misinformed and ignorant of the facts that you cannot even find a working definition of an "assault weapon" that can be entrusted to petty bureaucrats and politicians to enforce without bias and prejudice.

I spoke of limitations in specific instances. I made a point about those convicted of domestic violence. That seems to offend you. You foamed about me (and Feinstein, yadda, yadda) dictating whether you or anyone else should own a gun. Is this what you mean by bias and prejudice? Do you beat your women? Or do you just not get that some people should not be in possession of a firearm?

Vivienne, hi!

1st: Are you on P411?

2nd: Re the OP topic:

Generally speaking are you acquainted with the "gun control" laws in Mexico? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I am. And I am.

Vivienne, hi!

1st: Are you on P411?

2nd: Re the OP topic:

Generally speaking are you acquainted with the "gun control" laws in Mexico? Originally Posted by LexusLover

She is a wake!

I am. And I am. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

#1: Good.
#2: Then you know what happens when law abiding citizens don't have guns.

Rhetorical question (to just think about):

Do you "enjoy" the government having access and control of your medical records?

I suppose the best place to begin a discussion about "regulating" something is to settle on the purpose for "regulating" the something. So, and I'm not "assuming" anyone on here thinks like Obaminable, what is HIS purpose in desiring to "regulate" firearms?

What is "your" purpose?

Example: What was "his" purpose in seeking passage of "Obamacare"?

What was "your" purpose in agreeing that Obamacare should have been passed?

Did someone mention Feinstein? Would that be the former Mayor Feinstein?

Nah. That is merely all you are able to extract from what I said. Own it, hun. That's all you. It's actually what you posted; so, you're disingenuous crabbing won't work.


My guess is he's talking about the insane.......and I agree. People who hold opinions different from you and Odumbo are actually more lucid. You live in a fantasy la-la land, and, btw, you're still spewing insults despite your denials.


And? What does that mean to you? Odumbo lives in your fantasy la-la land where he, and you, believe inanimate objects commit evil crimes and the real perpetrators fart jelly bean rainbows.



Who cares? It's not going to happen. Ever. The People, with 300 million guns, will not allow it. It's already happened ... at Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775: "Those [like you] who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."



I spoke of limitations in specific instances. I made a point about those convicted of domestic violence. That seems to offend you. You foamed about me (and Feinstein, yadda, yadda) dictating whether you or anyone else should own a gun. Is this what you mean by bias and prejudice? Do you beat your women? Or do you just not get that some people should not be in possession of a firearm? And you don't get it that appointing you, Odumbo, Feinstein, etc., as the whimsical arbiters of who can and who cannot enjoy constitutional rights is not an option.


Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

.

IBH ... IMO .... anyone who is "familiar" with the "gun control" in Mexico, but seeks "gun control" in the U.S. .... probably shouldn't have a firearm or be near one. Just say ...

...Chicago!

How many things need to be categorized as "illegal" before someone figures out .....

.... if people want it, they are going to get it ... whether they buy or steal it.

And the more difficult it is for more people to get it, the more expensive it is and the more effort will be invoked to steal it. If anyone doubts that: Just ask a hooker!

It's actually what you posted; so, you're disingenuous crabbing won't work. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"who in one broad stroke called everyone that disagreed with her POV 'insane'"

That is a lie. And if you have to lie to get your point across, you probably don't have a point worth making.

People who hold opinions different from you and Odumbo are actually more lucid. You live in a fantasy la-la land, and, btw, you're still spewing insults despite your denials.

People who respond to arguments that don't exist are not lucid. They are not sane. Now you are also creating arguments that don't exist. Is it wrong to call a liar a liar, or is it wrong to be a liar?

Odumbo lives in your fantasy la-la land where he, and you, believe inanimate objects commit evil crimes and the real perpetrators fart jelly bean rainbows.

LOL....another non existent argument. We don't put guns in jail for shooting people, do we?

It's already happened ... at Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775: "Those [like you] who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I know what happened. Distorting reality doesn't actually mean it's going to happen again.

And you don't get it that appointing you, Odumbo, Feinstein, etc., as the whimsical arbiters of who can and who cannot enjoy constitutional rights is not an option.

Another fictional claim. But you totally dismissed the point, as you and "your ilk" are wont to do. And last I checked, the government works for me, and you, and every one of its citizens. So, yeah, we have a say.

So hostile. LOL.

IBH ... IMO .... anyone who is "familiar" with the "gun control" in Mexico, but seeks "gun control" in the U.S. .... probably shouldn't have a firearm or be near one. Just say ...

...Chicago!

How many things need to be categorized as "illegal" before someone figures out .....

.... if people want it, they are going to get it ... whether they buy or steal it.

And the more difficult it is for more people to get it, the more expensive it is and the more effort will be invoked to steal it. If anyone doubts that: Just ask a hooker! Originally Posted by LexusLover

LOL....and here I thought you actually wanted to have a meaningful discussion. Silly me.

That is a lie. And if you have to lie to get your point across, you probably don't have a point worth making. You lie when you say it's a lie.

People who respond to arguments that don't exist are not lucid. They are not sane. Now you are also creating arguments that don't exist. Is it wrong to call a liar a liar, or is it wrong to be a liar? You, Odumbo and the rest of your ilk blame inanimate objects for these criminal acts: that's not being rational or lucid.

LOL....another non existent argument. We don't put guns in jail for shooting people, do we? You, Odumbo and the rest of your ilk blamed and banished a flag, and you continue to live in a fantasy world believing that by banning the AR 15 you will keep bad people from killing other people.

I know what happened. Distorting reality doesn't actually mean it's going to happen again. You'd be the one distorting reality when you claim such things couldn't happen, when in the reality of historical fact, it already has happened before.

Another fictional claim. But you totally dismissed the point, as you and "your ilk" are wont to do. And last I checked, the government works for me, and you, and every one of its citizens. So, yeah, we have a say. One need only read everything you wrote in this paragraph after the first sentence to see that your first sentence is a bald face lie: it's obvious you and your ilk won't be satisfied until everyone's Second Amendment rights are wholly abridged. And BTW, the Second Amendment is still the law of the land and still trumps your "say".

So hostile. LOL. What's funny is your delusional belief that banning one type of weapon will actually keep bad people from killing other people.

Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

.

Another fictional claim. But you totally dismissed the point, as you and "your ilk" are wont to do. And last I checked, the government works for me, and you, and every one of its citizens. So, yeah, we have a say.

One need only read everything you wrote in this paragraph after the first sentence to see that your first sentence is a bald face lie: it's obvious you and your ilk won't be satisfied until everyone's Second Amendment rights are wholly abridged. And BTW, the Second Amendment is still the law of the land and still trumps your "say".

I have to agree more with Vivienne than you. SCOTUS is the ultimate determiner of how the Second Amendment is interpreted. It does not matter one iota how you, Vivienne or I interpret the amendment. And SCOTUS, which is more Conservative than Liberal, has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment is limited in the freedoms it gives citizens regarding the right to bear arms. And how do the justices on the Supreme Court get there? We vote for the President who nominates them and we vote for our representatives in Congress who approve the nominations. So we, the people, do have a significant say in how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted.

We've discussed this before. With several of the SCOTUS justices getting up there in years, the next POTUS will probably have a great say in determining the future interpretation of the Second Amendment.

LOL....and here I thought you actually wanted to have a meaningful discussion. Silly me. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

It is meaningful .... to explore a "cost-benefit" analysis regarding "gun control"!

But since you are familiar with Mexican "gun control" ... you already know that!

You just want to argue. I don't.