It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
It's not hyperbole. That actually happened.
So you do believe that felons should not be allowed to own a gun.
I think criminals are going to get guns regardless of any law that says they can't........
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
It's not hyperbole. That actually happened.
So you do believe that felons should not be allowed to own a gun.
I think criminals are going to get guns regardless of any law that says they can't........
That's seriously the most naive and ridiculously ignorant argument imaginable.
Yeah sure, most hardcore crims can get their hands on a firearm, no matter what laws they enact.
But you do realize that just because a person commits a criminal act, it doesn't mean they've been initiated into some kind of organization, right?
Its as if you think if some random dude who beats the piss out of his partner, automatically joins some elite group, where they can acquire any prohibited item they desire... Just so long as they provide there "criminal" membership card and burglar masks they received in the mail... lol.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Mach2
So my fiancee's piece of # ex that held a gun to her head while he let his friend rape her should be allowed to still own a gun?
originally posted by: Boadicea
But do you really believe that men are abused by women to the same extent that women are abused by men?
Would you feel differently about this bill if it applied equally to men and women, as opposed to protecting women only?
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Mach2
So my fiancee's piece of # ex that held a gun to her head while he let his friend rape her should be allowed to still own a gun?
Its as if you think some random dude who beats the piss out of his partner, automatically joins some elite group, where they can acquire any prohibited item they desire... Just so long as they provide there "criminal" membership card and burglar masks they received in the mail... lol.
originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: watchitburn
Felons lose their right to vote already.
Your argument is invalid.
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
IF that was the most naive and ridiculously ignorant argument imaginable, you surpassed it with your argument.
There are hundreds of millions of guns in the country - if a person wants to shoot up a load of people, they will be able to get a gun - easily - whether they are banned or not.
Unless of course you think the guns will be turned in LOL.
Not to butt in, but he didn't say that so why pretend he did?
Would you feel differently about this bill if it applied equally to men and women, as opposed to protecting women only?
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Boadicea
Its sounds like we agree that it's just bad legislation.
Yes. Good intentions are all well and good, but we also know the road to hell is paved with good intentions!
I don't like any law that singles out one group or demographic for criminalizing an act or deed. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all. Likewise, if it's not criminal for one person to do it, then it shouldn't be criminal for anyone to do it. Period.
Maybe, if carefully done, such extenuating circumstances could be used in sentencing, but again, only if it applies to all and not just "this" person or "that" person. But not for determining guilt itself. For example, if the judge decides to throw the book at the big brawny 6' 250-pound man who brutally beat his 5' 100-pound girlfriend, then the same size/weight advantages should apply when the big burly 6' 250-pound woman brutally beats her 5' 100-pound boyfriend.
originally posted by: Boadicea
Excuse me? I "pretended" nothing. Did you not notice the question mark at the end, indicating that I was asking a question?
originally posted by: Boadicea
You can play your superficial semantics without me.
Without semantics, all you have is gibberish. Maybe you don't know what semantics actually means (most people don't so don't feel bad).
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
And I did add to the conversation...
... you just chose to focus on my calling out your unjust insinuation.