LR1955 Wrote:So far what can be proved is that the shooter used bump stocks on the semi automatic rifles that he used to slaughter innocent people.
If there were no restrictions on gun rights, the shooter would have probably used a M-240 or two.
Yes, getting emotional loses arguments and makes someone look like a complete lunatic. Living proof is the woman in the video.
LR55
I see we have moved from moderator to critic. OK I will play. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps most of the innocent people that have been slaughtered in gun free zones would still be alive because they would not have been fish in a barrel. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps the thousands of rapes, car jackings, muggings and home evasions would not have resulted as most do in places that restrict guns. Perhaps the hundreds of millions murdered by democide would have never been so pervasive since people in government would not have had the exclusive of the tools of force. If there were no restrictions on firearms, there would have never been any Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas, or Oklahoma city bombing. If there were no restrictions on firearms, perhaps there would have never been any 911, and the longest war the US has ever been in. Perhaps John Adams was correct when he stated our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Perhaps what I just wrote is pure bunk, I guess that depends on the most basic of human rights, having an opinion. Conjecture is just that, conjecture. I agree, getting emotional loses arguments. Getting emotional over an attorney defending gun rights on a 2ndA forum, "who has worked as both prosecutor and defender for many decades" by slinging insults based solely on personal, opinionated, emotions does not strengthen ones case.