Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2008-10-15 14:36:59
rdx-fx
...
+955|7010

jord wrote:

Roid rage. And German's/Nazi's are bad.
No 'roid rage here.

And the Stg44 being the original assault rifle has absolutely nothing to do with the politics or morality of the country that designed it.
It is a piece of well-designed machinery.
Nazi Germany developed many revolutionary pieces of machinery.  Many of them in spite of their crazy little Austrian Corporal.
(Hitler personally slowed/stalled development/deployment of the Stg44 Assault Rifle,  and the Me-262 Jet Fighter/Bomber.)

Don't make the mistake of thinking German and Nazi are synonymous.  They weren't the same in WW-II, and modern Germans get a bit irritable if you even mention the word Nazi, much less accuse them of being one.  You'd likely get a better reception in an Irish pub, talking about the Troubles and what a fine lady Ms. Thatcher was.
2008-10-15 14:57:20
rdx-fx
...
+955|7010

Braddock wrote:

You lot should just go the whole hog and develop domestic nuclear weapons... in fact I'd say it's an infringement on your civil liberties that you don't have the right already!
Sounds like fun!  other than the fallout, lack of suitable areas to light them off on the 4th of July, general disturbing of neighbors, and the annoying tendency of thermonuclear weapons to slightly overcook any game animals you might bag with one.  and, they're a little hard on targets at the range.  For home defense.. not so good either.
2008-10-15 14:59:20
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7180

i never understood hunting tbh.  never made any sense to me whatsoever.  as for protection.....meh.
2008-10-15 15:18:14
13rin
Member
+977|6898

usmarine wrote:

i never understood hunting tbh.  never made any sense to me whatsoever.  as for protection.....meh.
Duck hunting is the shit.  I hunt wood ducks.  They're fucking quick as hell and the bag limit is only 3 a person.  However they are also very tasty.  You can't rush off to the local supermarket and buy one.

Duck hunting in Fla (my neck of the woods) is a bit of a challenge.  I hunt in the shit the deliverance boys would be afraid to go into.  Moccasins, Panthers and Gators Oh my!  Last year two of my buddies STEPPED on gators and I got a bit closer to one than I would have liked.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2008-10-15 15:22:24
mikkel
Member
+383|7020

Parker wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Parker wrote:

how many civilians were killed without the chance to defend themselves?


Shows a great lack of understanding of the conflict.
from 1969-2006, 1855 people didnt have a chance to defend themselves. oh, and those are civilians bertster....thats all i really need to know about that conflict.
Getting shot down rarely gives you a chance to defend yourself. Carrying a gun for personal safety does nothing but provide a false sense of security, as you aren't going to be able to reach for it in time if you're the victim of a random shooting, and you aren't going to get to it in time if you're being robbed at gunpoint. Essentially, almost no victims of shootings have a chance to defend themselves, so citing the continued proliferation of firearms as essential to personal safety sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth. War is peace.

I support responsible gun owners owning guns on the same level that both you and I support only responsible organisations owning dangerous radioactive material, but citing firearms as necessary for personal safety is just something that doesn't make sense to me.
2008-10-15 15:31:52
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6829|'Murka

west-phoenix-az wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

O"bah"ma's gun stance.

Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.

Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04

Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05

Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04
but yet his guards carry firearms
He doesn't like clingy people.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-10-15 15:41:08
13rin
Member
+977|6898

mikkel wrote:

Getting shot down rarely gives you a chance to defend yourself. Carrying a gun for personal safety does nothing but provide a false sense of security, as you aren't going to be able to reach for it in time if you're the victim of a random shooting, and you aren't going to get to it in time if you're being robbed at gunpoint. Essentially, almost no victims of shootings have a chance to defend themselves, so citing the continued proliferation of firearms as essential to personal safety sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth. War is peace.

I support responsible gun owners owning guns on the same level that both you and I support only responsible organisations owning dangerous radioactive material, but citing firearms as necessary for personal safety is just something that doesn't make sense to me.
Not too sure about the shot down part... Really can't carry on a plane anyways.  People get ambushed/assinated all the time.  I agree, It'd be about impossible to stop somebody from coming around the side of your garage as you're coming inside and smoking you.  However, carrying a gun for personal safety does provide security.  It may not provide immediate security for yourself in a previously described situation and only a fool would however assume him/herself safe due to carrying.

That aside, here it is...

In my state I am liscenced to conceal carry.  If I wittenss a forcible felony, I can use deadly force to stop it.  How does that translate into more security?  It might not directly immediately equate to me the holder, but if someone you care about is, let's say getting raped by four guys -wouldn't you want someone like me around?  I'd actually be able to end it.

Or let's say I go into a convience store and as I'm browsing the beer, some crackhead runs in the store to rob it.  I'm on the floor and the cashier is trying to frantically open the drawer.  Has he seen me yet?  Is he about to waste the cashier?  Oh great he's now going from patron to patron robbing them too...   I'm not claiming to be fucking superman or anything but come on....

Those two examples didn't hit it for you... Well, how about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard
Rep. Suzanna Hupp was there that day.  She left her gun in her vehicle as to comply with the laws.  She watched her father murdered and then her mother executed while trying to shield her mortally wounded husband.  She could have ended it...  The laws on the books were meant to protect the citizens, but that day the law protected the criminal and harmed the law abiding citizens.

It's cool though.  I'll keep on carrying for YOU.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2008-10-15 15:52:50
mikkel
Member
+383|7020

DBBrinson1 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Getting shot down rarely gives you a chance to defend yourself. Carrying a gun for personal safety does nothing but provide a false sense of security, as you aren't going to be able to reach for it in time if you're the victim of a random shooting, and you aren't going to get to it in time if you're being robbed at gunpoint. Essentially, almost no victims of shootings have a chance to defend themselves, so citing the continued proliferation of firearms as essential to personal safety sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth. War is peace.

I support responsible gun owners owning guns on the same level that both you and I support only responsible organisations owning dangerous radioactive material, but citing firearms as necessary for personal safety is just something that doesn't make sense to me.
Not too sure about the shot down part... Really can't carry on a plane anyways.  People get ambushed/assinated all the time.  I agree, It'd be about impossible to stop somebody from coming around the side of your garage as you're coming inside and smoking you.  However, carrying a gun for personal safety does provide security.  It may not provide immediate security for yourself in a previously described situation and only a fool would however assume him/herself safe due to carrying.

That aside, here it is...

In my state I am liscenced to conceal carry.  If I wittenss a forcible felony, I can use deadly force to stop it.  How does that translate into more security?  It might not directly immediately equate to me the holder, but if someone you care about is, let's say getting raped by four guys -wouldn't you want someone like me around?  I'd actually be able to end it.

Or let's say I go into a convience store and as I'm browsing the beer, some crackhead runs in the store to rob it.  I'm on the floor and the cashier is trying to frantically open the drawer.  Has he seen me yet?  Is he about to waste the cashier?  Oh great he's now going from patron to patron robbing them too...   I'm not claiming to be fucking superman or anything but come on....

Those two examples didn't hit it for you... Well, how about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard
Rep. Suzanna Hupp was there that day.  She left her gun in her vehicle as to comply with the laws.  She watched her father murdered and then her mother executed while trying to shield her mortally wounded husband.  She could have ended it...  The laws on the books were meant to protect the citizens, but that day the law protected the criminal and harmed the law abiding citizens.

It's cool though.  I'll keep on carrying for YOU.
Your examples are sad stories, but for every example you can give me, there's at least one example out there of irresponsible gun ownership leading to deaths. You might think of yourself as a saviour, but trust me, I would rather that you went unarmed if it meant that the huge number of irresponsible gun owners went unarmed as well. I don't want to speculate about how many of either there are, but if I was given the choice to pass ten people in a dark alley, nine of them responsible gun owners, and the last an irresponsible gun owner, or pass ten unarmed people, I'd go with the latter. The ideas of safety are nice, but in practice, history has shown us that proliferation of legally owned firearms simply leads to more gun violence.
2008-10-15 15:59:49
13rin
Member
+977|6898

mikkel wrote:

Your examples are sad stories, but for every example you can give me, there's at least one example out there of irresponsible gun ownership leading to deaths. You might think of yourself as a saviour, but trust me, I would rather that you went unarmed if it meant that the huge number of irresponsible gun owners went unarmed as well. I don't want to speculate about how many of either there are, but if I was given the choice to pass ten people in a dark alley, nine of them responsible gun owners, and the last an irresponsible gun owner, or pass ten unarmed people, I'd go with the latter. The ideas of safety are nice, but in practice, history has shown us that proliferation of legally owned firearms simply leads to more gun violence.
I would be willing to bet far more crimes have been prevented because someone had a gun and the bad guy didn't (or the bad guy thought the good guy had a guy).  Chances are then that the last irresponsible gun owner isn't a law abiding citizen then.  The statistics on law abiding carrying citizens is overwhelmingly against your argument.  A FSU professor (we've got a badass criminology dept) set out to prove your last sentance, and found the exact opposite.  Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are a good thing.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2008-10-15 16:11:45
mikkel
Member
+383|7020

DBBrinson1 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Your examples are sad stories, but for every example you can give me, there's at least one example out there of irresponsible gun ownership leading to deaths. You might think of yourself as a saviour, but trust me, I would rather that you went unarmed if it meant that the huge number of irresponsible gun owners went unarmed as well. I don't want to speculate about how many of either there are, but if I was given the choice to pass ten people in a dark alley, nine of them responsible gun owners, and the last an irresponsible gun owner, or pass ten unarmed people, I'd go with the latter. The ideas of safety are nice, but in practice, history has shown us that proliferation of legally owned firearms simply leads to more gun violence.
I would be willing to bet far more crimes have been prevented because someone had a gun and the bad guy didn't (or the bad guy thought the good guy had a guy).  Chances are then that the last irresponsible gun owner isn't a law abiding citizen then.  The statistics on law abiding carrying citizens is overwhelmingly against your argument.  A FSU professor (we've got a badass criminology dept) set out to prove your last sentance, and found the exact opposite.  Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are a good thing.
It doesn't really matter to me whether or not the last irresponsible gun owner is a law abiding citizen. A bullet does the same amount of damage, regardless of who fires it.

I'm using this strictly as an example of criminal statistics, as I'm well aware of the cultural differences, but if you stack up gun related crimes in the US against gun related crimes in any European country in which carrying on a daily basis is illegal, the percentages speak overwhelmingly for my argument.

I'm afraid I can't really reply to the findings you're citing, as you didn't supply any information about them at all.
2008-10-15 16:22:35
13rin
Member
+977|6898

mikkel wrote:

It doesn't really matter to me whether or not the last irresponsible gun owner is a law abiding citizen. A bullet does the same amount of damage, regardless of who fires it.

I'm using this strictly as an example of criminal statistics, as I'm well aware of the cultural differences, but if you stack up gun related crimes in the US against gun related crimes in any European country in which carrying on a daily basis is illegal, the percentages speak overwhelmingly for my argument.

I'm afraid I can't really reply to the findings you're citing, as you didn't supply any information about them at all.
As the same damage a car to a pedestrian that striks a person regardless if the person driving was drunk or not.  So by your logic we need to ban cars as well.

I didn't bother adding any sources since you've based your argument on an opinon and hypothetical instances.  Talk to this guy.
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

My state.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
^scroll on down to the right to carry part.

*link illustrating my point of conceal carriers being responsible is down now, but I'll make sure to get it to you.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-10-15 16:33:37)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2008-10-15 16:24:46
.:ronin:.|Patton
Respekct dad i love u always
+946|7228|Marathon, Florida Keys

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

The problem with the AWB is that it targeted the cosmetics of a weapon, not the ballistics.  I can find you a weapon that is ballistically comparable to the AR-15 with a more traditional wood/hunting rifle stock.  What's the difference?  Ballistically nothing or very little, and what a weapon looks like is not what should be at question.
Balistically, this lil guy runs with the .223.  BUT, it's a pistol.  Little felt recoil.  Accurate as hell.  And there are rounds that defeat armor availiable.
http://remtek.com/arms/fn/57/index.htm

Yea, this is the next gun I buy...  20 round mags standard.
i shot one at a range and the recoil felt like that of a air pistol, extremely accurate.
It uses the 5.7 cartridge.

I got a video of it want me to upload?
https://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/patton1337/stats.jpg
2008-10-15 16:25:04
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6813|The Gem Saloon

mikkel wrote:

Getting shot down rarely gives you a chance to defend yourself.
there is a chance to, yes.

mikkel wrote:

Carrying a gun for personal safety does nothing but provide a false sense of security, as you aren't going to be able to reach for it in time if you're the victim of a random shooting, and you aren't going to get to it in time if you're being robbed at gunpoint.
maybe you cant, but you dont know me.

mikkel wrote:

Essentially, almost no victims of shootings have a chance to defend themselves, so citing the continued proliferation of firearms as essential to personal safety sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth. War is peace.
you keep saying things like "almost" and "rarely". those are not defining terms for me.
allow me to explain;
i am not the average citizen carrying a pistol cause i want a false sense of security. i am better with firearms than most people i have ever met...and that is not me being cocky. i am a natural marksman and i TRAIN no less than once a week.
if there is a chance....even an "almost" or "rarely" chance...i want it.


mikkel wrote:

I support responsible gun owners owning guns on the same level that both you and I support only responsible organisations owning dangerous radioactive material, but citing firearms as necessary for personal safety is just something that doesn't make sense to me.
where do you live?
im just curious.
2008-10-15 16:31:52
13rin
Member
+977|6898

.:ronin:.|Patton wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

The problem with the AWB is that it targeted the cosmetics of a weapon, not the ballistics.  I can find you a weapon that is ballistically comparable to the AR-15 with a more traditional wood/hunting rifle stock.  What's the difference?  Ballistically nothing or very little, and what a weapon looks like is not what should be at question.
Balistically, this lil guy runs with the .223.  BUT, it's a pistol.  Little felt recoil.  Accurate as hell.  And there are rounds that defeat armor availiable.
http://remtek.com/arms/fn/57/index.htm

Yea, this is the next gun I buy...  20 round mags standard.
i shot one at a range and the recoil felt like that of a air pistol, extremely accurate.
It uses the 5.7 cartridge.

I got a video of it want me to upload?
Go fer it.  Yea.. the 5.7 cartridge is the lil guy I was speaking to.  Fun gun no?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2008-10-15 17:48:48
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7133|US

mikkel wrote:

Your examples are sad stories, but for every example you can give me, there's at least one example out there of irresponsible gun ownership leading to deaths. You might think of yourself as a saviour, but trust me, I would rather that you went unarmed if it meant that the huge number of irresponsible gun owners went unarmed as well. I don't want to speculate about how many of either there are, but if I was given the choice to pass ten people in a dark alley, nine of them responsible gun owners, and the last an irresponsible gun owner, or pass ten unarmed people, I'd go with the latter. The ideas of safety are nice, but in practice, history has shown us that proliferation of legally owned firearms simply leads to more gun violence.
With 700,000-2.5million defensive gun uses per year, in the US, compared to just over 600,000 gun crimes (not deaths, not injuries, just crimes), it is mathematically safe to say that guns are used to stop more crimes than  used to commit crime.

Your last sentence...care to provide evidence? 

mikkel wrote:

I'm using this strictly as an example of criminal statistics, as I'm well aware of the cultural differences, but if you stack up gun related crimes in the US against gun related crimes in any European country in which carrying on a daily basis is illegal, the percentages speak overwhelmingly for my argument.
Actually, no.  Britain had a lower rate of gun crime before CCW or "assault weapons" were a serious topic in the US, and before strict gun control was instituted in the UK.  However, gun crime rates are up in the UK and going down in the US.  The "odd" thing is US laws (CCW at least) are getting more lax, while the UK virtually banned the mere possession of handguns.
2008-10-15 22:55:28
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6809

We don't have a whole lot of shootings here (it's actually rare) and our gun regulations are pretty tight.  I'd have thought that the less guns there were, the less crime (and no, I'm not saying America should stop selling guns, it's far too late for that).
2008-10-16 02:05:58
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6567|'straya
Obama might as well not even bother with this... it would make lots of people angry.

in my opinion America needs a REAL gun law change. not insubstantial changes.
2008-10-16 02:53:09
mikkel
Member
+383|7020

DBBrinson1 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

It doesn't really matter to me whether or not the last irresponsible gun owner is a law abiding citizen. A bullet does the same amount of damage, regardless of who fires it.

I'm using this strictly as an example of criminal statistics, as I'm well aware of the cultural differences, but if you stack up gun related crimes in the US against gun related crimes in any European country in which carrying on a daily basis is illegal, the percentages speak overwhelmingly for my argument.

I'm afraid I can't really reply to the findings you're citing, as you didn't supply any information about them at all.
As the same damage a car to a pedestrian that striks a person regardless if the person driving was drunk or not.  So by your logic we need to ban cars as well.
No. By my logic, I support allowing responsible drivers to drive cars.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I didn't bother adding any sources since you've based your argument on an opinon and hypothetical instances.  Talk to this guy.
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
Opinion and hypothetical instances are perfectly acceptable in debates. There's nothing wrong with that. Simply telling me that you think I'm wrong because some guy said so, without telling me who he is or why he thinks I'm wrong, though, that's something else entirely.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

My state.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
^scroll on down to the right to carry part.

*link illustrating my point of conceal carriers being responsible is down now, but I'll make sure to get it to you.
You're going to have to provide me with something more than a single example. That page states that concealed carry permits are in place in the majority of US states, but the US still has a much, much bigger volume of firearms related violence than countries without concealed carry permits. Essentially, though, what I'm arguing against is continuing to proliferate firearms, and passing laws to bring them into the streets, in a country so plagued by their criminal applications. Gun violence is a problem that needs to be attacked at its roots, and arming everyone is doing precisely the opposite.

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Getting shot down rarely gives you a chance to defend yourself.
there is a chance to, yes.
Rarely. Most people aren't going to shoot back when shot, and the ones who try are overwhelmingly likely to just get shot again.

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Carrying a gun for personal safety does nothing but provide a false sense of security, as you aren't going to be able to reach for it in time if you're the victim of a random shooting, and you aren't going to get to it in time if you're being robbed at gunpoint.
maybe you cant, but you dont know me.
I don't know you, no, but I know with absolute certainty that it is a ridiculously tiny minority of people who would be able to pull out a gun and shoot first when held at gunpoint. There's absolutely no way you can convince me of anything else, because it's simply how it is.

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Essentially, almost no victims of shootings have a chance to defend themselves, so citing the continued proliferation of firearms as essential to personal safety sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth. War is peace.
you keep saying things like "almost" and "rarely". those are not defining terms for me.
Then you need a dictionary, I'm afraid.

Parker wrote:

allow me to explain;
i am not the average citizen carrying a pistol cause i want a false sense of security. i am better with firearms than most people i have ever met...and that is not me being cocky. i am a natural marksman and i TRAIN no less than once a week.
if there is a chance....even an "almost" or "rarely" chance...i want it.
Congratulations, you belong to a very small minority. It might be that you want that chance, but the question is whether or not giving you that small chance is worth saturating homes, cars, businesses and streets with firearms. My opinion is still that it is not.

Parker wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I support responsible gun owners owning guns on the same level that both you and I support only responsible organisations owning dangerous radioactive material, but citing firearms as necessary for personal safety is just something that doesn't make sense to me.
where do you live?
im just curious.
Copenhagen, Denmark.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-10-16 03:00:07)

2008-10-16 04:30:48
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7180

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Obama might as well not even bother with this... it would make lots of people angry.

usmarine wrote:

obama voted for shotguns to be considered assault weapons lulz
do people on this forum who support him know anything about him other than talking points and youtube vids?
2008-10-16 04:58:27
JahManRed
wank
+646|7046|IRELAND

usmarine wrote:

i never understood hunting tbh.  never made any sense to me whatsoever.  as for protection.....meh.
The meat from a wild animal has much less fat and is of better quality due to the variation in diet and exercise needed than some cow standing in one place all day being fed antibiotics hand over fist. Plus its usually free. The forest close to my house is full of dear, wild goat and there are rabbits everywhere. We take large deer or goat with a .22 with home made hollow tips. Kill every time. This proves a .22 is all you need for the average hunter. Defiantly don't need an assault rifle to hunt. They are for killing people and nothing else.
2008-10-16 06:02:14
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6571|what

usmarine wrote:

do people on this forum who support him know anything about him other than talking points and youtube vids?
You mean, like his shady collaboration with terrorists, that he is actually a Muslim with a dodgy background and is a traitor to the US?

No.

And your right, we only support him for his talking points and what we hear and see from youtube vids and other sources.

I haven't met the guy, though.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-10-16 06:32:40
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7180

TheAussieReaper wrote:

usmarine wrote:

do people on this forum who support him know anything about him other than talking points and youtube vids?
You mean, like his shady collaboration with terrorists, that he is actually a Muslim with a dodgy background and is a traitor to the US?

No.

And your right, we only support him for his talking points and what we hear and see from youtube vids and other sources.

I haven't met the guy, though.
well it seems his gun stance/record gets ignored.  why is that?

raise you hand if you know why....

i know.


its not a popular talking point, thats why.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-10-16 06:33:28)

2008-10-16 06:37:25
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7039|London, England
I don't think you all should stop until fully auto GPMG's are available to the public at a subsidised price
2008-10-16 06:38:35
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6571|what

usmarine wrote:

well it seems his gun stance/record gets ignored.  why is that?

raise you hand if you know why....

i know.


its not a popular talking point, thats why.
You mean the proposed assault weapons laws, and that the wanted shot guns to be classed in a more dangerous category?

And the reason his stance/record on gun control has less attention, probably has something to do with the issues that affect ME.

Like the current wars the US and as a consequence Australia are involved in. The economic situation to name another.

Do they deserve more or less attention?

What matters to me, does.

One issue that hadn't been brought up until very recently during the last debate, was abortion. Surely that deserved more focus, as it is a topic that divides many and all of us.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-10-16 06:40:13
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7180

no i mean his record.  you know, his "experience" so far.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard