Another start to the school year, another shooting; nothing will change

#704
#704
82_VOL_83 said:
Their opposition to guns is based in Marxism. An armed populace should not be able to be controlled. However, we are one generation removed from the pussies that our kids have become to seeing disarming the public.
Click to expand...
I completely agree a component of the gun grabbers' movement is based on this. An armed population is far more dangerous to subdue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, MR_VOL, InVOLuntary and 1 other person
#706
#706
GroverCleveland said:
That may be so, but I am far from 5 years old and and expressed my opinion he is relatively more emotional about the topic at hand than Luther. Both can be true and doesn't require some asinine comment.
Click to expand...
I have read his comments for years here. It started out with gun owners having massive amounts of liability insurance in order to suffer financial penalties. Given that he works in a law office, there is only grabbing a portion of that liability that he cares about. He has no emotions about this except greed. The comment wasn't asinine, he has you fooled if you think he gives 2 ***** about deaths of those people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and SpaceCoastVol
#709
#709
82_VOL_83 said:
I have read his comments for years here. It started out with gun owners having massive amounts of liability insurance in order to suffer financial penalties. Given that he works in a law office, there is only grabbing a portion of that liability that he cares about. He has no emotions about this except greed. The comment wasn't asinine, he has you fooled if you think he gives 2 ***** about deaths of those people.
Click to expand...
This is a weird thing to say about someone. There are also plenty of law offices that are completely unaffected by this
 
#713
#713
82_VOL_83 said:
I have read his comments for years here. It started out with gun owners having massive amounts of liability insurance in order to suffer financial penalties. Given that he works in a law office, there is only grabbing a portion of that liability that he cares about. He has no emotions about this except greed. The comment wasn't asinine, he has you fooled if you think he gives 2 ***** about deaths of those people.
Click to expand...


If you are referring to me I'll just say that I'm a few years from retirement and my practice is representing law enforcement when they get sued. There's no upside whatsoever to that practice in there being less guns out there. And to the contrary, I deal with lawsuits where officers shoot and kill or injure persons confronting them with firearms.

And finally, I would think that any person would be horrified by the notion of children being shot and killed. I advocate insurance as a hurdle to gun ownership for that reason in part because I assume that those who would pay it are going to be responsible people.

So all in all, assuming you were referring to me, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of my motives, nor could you be more insulting.
 
#714
#714
kiddiedoc said:
Not weird at all, if you have followed the Gator lurker's posts over the years.
Click to expand...
I’m not a big fan of the “YOU DON’T CARE about the children/women and children/dead children” method of having a discussion with someone
 
#715
#715
lawgator1 said:
If you are referring to me I'll just say that I'm a few years from retirement and my practice is representing law enforcement when they get sued. There's no upside whatsoever to that practice in there being less guns out there. And to the contrary, I deal with lawsuits where officers shoot and kill or injure persons confronting them with firearms.

And finally, I would think that any person would be horrified by the notion of children being shot and killed. I advocate insurance as a hurdle to gun ownership for that reason in part because I assume that those who would pay it are going to be responsible people.

So all in all, assuming you were referring to me, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of my motives, nor could you be more insulting.
Click to expand...
Your posting history suggests otherwise.
 
#717
#717
hog88 said:
Liberals are the last people that need to lecture anyone about caring about children.
Click to expand...


Everyone cares about kids and no one wants to see them hurt. It's just a matter of whether you are willing to embrace a policy point of view that restricts gun possession or access relative to that and, if so, to what degree.

I sense that pretty much everyone agrees that a parent who allows kids access to guns when the kid is known to have made threats should face consequences.

A lesser number would agree if the kid was just described as troubled.

And a lesser number than that would say there ought to be liability when a kid even seemingly doing fine gets access to guns.


I happen to belive all three should result in some kind of consequence, depending on the circumstances.
 
#718
#718
lawgator1 said:
Everyone cares about kids and no one wants to see them hurt. It's just a matter of whether you are willing to embrace a policy point of view that restricts gun possession or access relative to that and, if so, to what degree.

I sense that pretty much everyone agrees that a parent who allows kids access to guns when the kid is known to have made threats should face consequences.

A lesser number would agree if the kid was just described as troubled.

And a lesser number than that would say there ought to be liability when a kid even seemingly doing fine gets access to guns.


I happen to belive all three should result in some kind of consequence, depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Gun ownership is a RIGHT for a lot of reasons. If you want to start with your ridiculous proposals start in Chicago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, InVOLuntary, MR_VOL and 2 others
#719
#719
lawgator1 said:
Everyone cares about kids and no one wants to see them hurt. It's just a matter of whether you are willing to embrace a policy point of view that restricts gun possession or access relative to that and, if so, to what degree.

I sense that pretty much everyone agrees that a parent who allows kids access to guns when the kid is known to have made threats should face consequences.

A lesser number would agree if the kid was just described as troubled.

And a lesser number than that would say there ought to be liability when a kid even seemingly doing fine gets access to guns.


I happen to belive all three should result in some kind of consequence, depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Hog is referring to liberal actions. For example Dem governments terrible decisions, policies, and laws during covid. They hurt more kids than guns ever have. Continue support of predominantly liberal teachers unions who proved themselves to be less essential than the to go specialist at Chilis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, Vol since 77, InVOLuntary and 5 others
#720
#720
lawgator1 said:
Everyone cares about kids and no one wants to see them hurt. It's just a matter of whether you are willing to embrace a policy point of view that restricts gun possession or access relative to that and, if so, to what degree.

I sense that pretty much everyone agrees that a parent who allows kids access to guns when the kid is known to have made threats should face consequences.

A lesser number would agree if the kid was just described as troubled.

And a lesser number than that would say there ought to be liability when a kid even seemingly doing fine gets access to guns.


I happen to belive all three should result in some kind of consequence, depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I first want to make it clear that I’m not including you in the following generalizations now that you are an independent.

Liberals are the ones pushing this transgender crap, allowing mentally unstable parents to give their kids hormones and surgeries that cannot be undone. Liberals continually push dumbing down public schools and keeping people dependent on welfare. So no, liberals DGAS about kids. They only care about their agenda of growing government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77 and 7 others
#721
#721
volfanhill said:
Hog is referring to liberal actions. For example Dem governments terrible decisions, policies, and laws during covid. They hurt more kids than guns ever have. Continue support of predominantly liberal teachers unions who proved themselves to be less essential than the to go specialist at Chilis.
Click to expand...

Well that was nicer than what I posted. But YEAH!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, GroverCleveland and volfanhill
#722
#722
volfanhill said:
Hog is referring to liberal actions. For example Dem governments terrible decisions, policies, and laws during covid. They hurt more kids than guns ever have. Continue support of predominantly liberal teachers unions who proved themselves to be less essential than the to go specialist at Chilis.
Click to expand...

So THAT'S the chain you work for.
 
#725
#725
lawgator1 said:
Everyone cares about kids and no one wants to see them hurt. It's just a matter of whether you are willing to embrace a policy point of view that restricts gun possession or access relative to that and, if so, to what degree.

I sense that pretty much everyone agrees that a parent who allows kids access to guns when the kid is known to have made threats should face consequences.

A lesser number would agree if the kid was just described as troubled.

And a lesser number than that would say there ought to be liability when a kid even seemingly doing fine gets access to guns.


I happen to belive all three should result in some kind of consequence, depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

You don't care about kids, they people you voted for murdered not only kids but American kids.... not with guns but missiles. In an attempt to gain empathy you lied to this forum saying you didn't vote for President for many cycles, you also claimed you were "independent".

What law firm are you talking about here?

It's just a matter of whether you are willing to embrace a policy point of view that restricts gun possession or access relative to that and, if so, to what degree.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with anything as it really doesn't say anything of value.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top