The "agreement" is a deception in my opinion. He is absolutely for another big step on the slippery slope that he denies exists.

The rebuttals are thoughtless at best, laughable in the middle, and disingenuous possibly. Study after study has shown that gun control laws change the behavior of law abiding citizens, not criminals. Yet 594 trades our essential liberty and private property RIGHTS for an imagined reduction in crime.

F***ing hell indeed. And this is coming from "one of our own"? I deny it, sir.

To read a post in an anti-gun control (anti-Human control) thread that gives the appearance of agreement when all of the SUBSTANCE of what he says is "Let's have another piece of gun control because THIS one makes sense (kind of, but I agree that there are about two truckloads of problems with it, but we'll get it ironed out after it passes, come on guys, I am not contradicting myself, I just want fewer criminals to have guns)" seems to me to just be begging for a "WTF?!"

But I understand and applaud your push for more acceptance and civility. I tried that route and found that a nasty taste develops.

And for the record- I am not trying to convince the pro-gun-control fellow about anything anymore. I am simply pointing out what Talons has so quickly recognized as cognitive dissonance.




This is one of the most ridiculous responses that I have received. Unworthy of a thoughtful response.

I will say that I "dare" suggest anything that I want, as you are also free to "dare" suggest as you will.

I find my daring suggestion that a further erosion of our individual 2A rights, property rights, and common security is a bad idea and that continued support of such erosions is distasteful is a bit less daring than the opposite view.

Man, Steve has been in here for awhile...

I expect a stinging rebuke and a crying jag on my part in a few minutes.

Any minute now my world is going to come crashing down in ruin and despair.

I have asked the missus to prepare the IV drip that'll be needed for dehydration after the weeping starts.

*anxious hand-wringing*

LOL . . . nothing in the works, I promise.

Dammit...

All that work for nothing. Well, at least I didn't get into the detail work.

hoooooleeee cheeeet!

i'm very disturbed.

I like that. How's the house coming along?

Oh Christ, now you've done it.

The little alien in his pants is gonna come to life, and rip out through the zipper in excitement when he sees this little vignette.

Excitement ensues on Utube as a result.

And you called ME brutal.


Good point. I am back to work.

Compromise? NO

I can't unsee that

Has UBC's ever stopped a felon from getting his hands on a firearm?

How would that change with 594?

Just because private parties would be required by law to do UBC's on a private sale..... IN my opinion, would not slow down a felon much at all.

It would certainly impact the law-abiding public, for the acts of a few.

Let's take this further with drunks. Lets put a breath switch in EVERY car. Being a licensed driver isn't a right, its a privilage. So everyone shouldn't mind the impact on the driving public........ due to the acts of a tiny few.

The topic, you're off it.

Why is Steve dominating Phil Collins?