Madmen don't need a firearm to commit mass murder. McVeigh and Kehoe both killed more people than lanza and Holmes combined.

But none of that is the point of the cartoon. Which is that anytime you disarm law abiding citizens you're telling criminals, be they professionals, amateurs, gang members, junkies and yes most definitely madmen, that their victims, ie the law abiding saps who obeyed the law, will not be able to stop them.

A far better name for "gun free zone" is "defenseless victim zone" because that's the message we're sending to criminals.

Yes, but there is no proposal to disarm the law abiding citizen so the whole line of arguement is just repeated parrot fodder.

Exactly, so you have to take the statement apart further to see if it makes sense.
The line platapus gave doesn't make sense when you go into it.

Only the move to take away assault rifles and clips capable of carrying multiply cartridges. Yes, the law abiding citizen my still purchase other specific types of arms. Criminals will purchase all types available. Legally or not.

So outlawing the guns doesn't mean only criminals can have guns then.
Thanks, I just wanted confirmation that the "gun control for dummies" was mindless parrot fodder.


The nature of criminal purchases is that they are clearer to define and so address, plus by their nature they have the black market premium charge.

Ok, so you recognize that this cartoon is misleading since the law abiding citizen doesn't carry an assault rifle here. :hmmm:

So having repeatedly condemned people for using pointless catch-phrases, you make up your own and repeat it ad infinitum.

No, it's not misleading at all. Whether you agree or not, and whether the cartoonist is right or wrong, his point was still valid. "If this, then that." It's how logic works.

You can call gun-owners wrong if you like, and you may be right. That said, they are always worrying about the possibilities of the future, not the limitations of today. "Slippery slope", "Camel's nose in the tent", "Domino effect" and all that.

If I was to repeat incorrect sensationalist slogans from gun nut weekly or the brady bunch and pretend it made a point then you too could call it mindless parrot fodder:03:

The flaw in the logic being that there has never been nor is likely to ever be that "if this" element at all.
He might as well say "If the sky fell on my head it would hurt because there is a lots of sky" pure nonsense isn't it.

It's not misleading. In my state it takes months to get a firearms license and it can be denied by the local chief of police on a whim. Other jurisdictions like New York will make you wait for years. If you are accused of a crime (not convicted just accused) your firearms can be confiscated.

The gun banners have on numerous occasions stated that their ultimate desire is to see all firearms banned from civilian ownership. I have no reason to doubt them. Their agenda has been quite clear for decades.

Alright then, as you wish.

In the end, it's not my country, not my problem.

No, he has a shotgun from what I see. The law to be shoved up our keesters entails removal of assault rifles and large clips. The citizen is totally disarmed. There are just a few less types of weapons on the shelf to buy. In way, it is misleading in the respect that he is totally disarmed in the second picture which is not the case in reality.

Not yet but once they establish a list of banned models it'll be easy peasy to add to it at their convenience. Robber sticks up a store with a M1911, add them to the list. A murder is committed with a .357 revolver, add them to the list. Someone shoots themselves with a .22 bolt action rifle, add them to the list. It's Gun rights elimination by degrees. That's why this crap needs to be nipped in the bud.

Yes, one would believe this sets a precedence. I don't believe this is the underlying goal because the fight for it is not what the country needs at the moment. Throw out some legislation on assault rifles. Make a legacy. Retire to HI. For decades the "establishment" has tried to get rid of the guns. The guns are still here and will be for a long time.

It is totally misleading.

Not outlawed then.


Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.

Not outlawed then.

Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
So it can be restrictions on travel, surrendering passport, curfew, drug testing, signing on at the police station, not associating with certain people and ...not having firearms.
Crazy stuff eh:rotfl2:

Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it.
He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.
So more bull

I just had a remarkable thought. Tribesman has shown himself to be a master at countering people, at putting people down, and at mocking people. The remarkable thought, though, is this: What exactly is Tribesman's stance on the subject? I can't recall ever seeing him actually express an opinion on this question. He seems to live for making fun of other people, but know one I know could say what he really thinks on the subject, because he's never said so himself.

So, do you actually have any thoughts on anything at all, or is your entire reason for existing to mock others?