{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
原先發佈於：Sapphire
由Dustin編輯：
10/13/2013 4:19:35 PM
39
'Guns Save Lives Day' to be held on Newtown Anniversary
[url=http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Newtown-Opposes-Plan-for-Guns-Save-Lives-Day-on-Dec-14-227451271.html]Preston, please go away[/url]
I don't know if anyone else lives in my state (Connecticut) or lives close enough to know how a lot of people are here, but even before Newtown we had the strictest gun laws in the country. And after this happened, the pro-gun control argument became super emotionally charged. I know that guns (pictures, symbols, even mentionings) were even banned from a lot of schools, and most conservatives couldn't start a conversation about their favorite rifle without giving a speech to make sure everyone listening wouldn't be offended.
So yeah, biggest troll of our time.
-
4 回覆
-
43 回覆>People bitch and moan about gun rights advocates "dance on the graves of dead people" when they mention guns in a positive light. >Dance on the graves of dead people hours after a shooting by pushing their gun control agenda >"Hurr Gun rights advocates support killing children!" Guns DO save lives. I have no problem with this. If you get emotionally unstable at the thought of other people exercising their rights, that's your problem.
-
3 回覆
-
3 回覆
-
35 回覆What people like to forget is that the second amendment is there so that the civilian population can overthrow a tyrannical government if need be. Of course it a bit outdated, but once you disarm the civilian population nothing is stopping the government from seizing full control. Hitler did it before the mass genocides. And who could call the US out on it? Really, who? One of the strongest, and most funded military. It would be the most hypocritical thing the world has ever seen.
-
2 回覆由DELIVER ME MEMES編輯： 10/13/2013 11:24:51 PMSince 1994 CT has had an Assault Weapons Ban in effect constantly. why does nobody mention the fact that the AR-15 he used was an AWB compliant AR that he had stolen after murdering his own mother? nothing proposed in January or any of the stricter state regulations passed since would have done anything to stop new town.
-
9 回覆>clearly utilizing a tragic event for political gain via holiday gesture that a good portion of the population is going to find offensive, no matter how you try to spin it >some people wonder why other people think this is bad >those same people who don't think this is bad would flip their shit if someone tried to make an event where the theme was "guns are bad" or something along those lines I wonder sometimes
-
I remember the week following the shooting. It was near Christmas, and I got banned from the forums for posting a thread about how the shooting should serve as a lesson to all of us: [spoiler]Never throw away your gift receipts.[/spoiler]
-
1 回覆Whatever your stance on gun control is, you have to admit that hosting a pro gun even on the day that a school shooting occurred in the state it happened is incredibly tone deaf and hurts the image of the pro-gun community.
-
1 回覆
-
1 回覆
-
2 回覆I just think guns are stupid the whole concept of thinking they are ok to have incase there is another gun man nearby just feels like it's encouraging shoot outs and acts of people being vigilantes. I really don't think that the people who do carry them would be "in the right place at the right time". On the other hand, banning fire arms won't stop people from illegally obtaining them. So if we look at the real problem it's not really guns. It's either acts of terrorism by gangs and groups or mentally unstable people. How could we lower the instances of these people trying to murder others?
-
3 回覆
-
2 回覆T-Mobile's shoddy coverage caused Sandy Hook, true story. (but, in all seriousness, the school had poor phone reception)
-
Guns help people kill people. Guns increase the rate of killings statistically. People being killed more often=people dying more often. People dying more often=a slight decrease in human population. A slight decrease in human population=less humans on earth. And the world doesn't need anymore humans damaging it right?
-
1 回覆
