Rodentman wrote:On the news I caught a bit of an anti-gun rally at the Capitol. I saw a sign by the podium that read "Actually Guns DO Kill People."
I suspect it will be challenging to convince the left wing otherwise. How can people get entrenched in such nonsense. And they talk about "common sense" gun laws, whatever that means.
Rodentman wrote:On the news I caught a bit of an anti-gun rally at the Capitol. I saw a sign by the podium that read "Actually Guns DO Kill People."
I suspect it will be challenging to convince the left wing otherwise. How can people get entrenched in such nonsense. And they talk about "common sense" gun laws, whatever that means.
bstrawse wrote: Trying to change their mind is a waste of time.
b
Ghost wrote:bstrawse wrote: Trying to change their mind is a waste of time.
b
Most important part
dismal wrote:Ghost wrote:bstrawse wrote: Trying to change their mind is a waste of time.
b
Most important part
Yep, just gotta keep reaching out to the 95% who don’t have a strong opinion,
Holland&Holland wrote:dismal wrote:
Yep, just gotta keep reaching out to the 95% who don’t have a strong opinion,
My guess is 95% is a bit optimistic
Ghost wrote:xd ED wrote:Ghost wrote:I also think anyone who makes a false claim should get a 144 hour hold in return.
You've gotten close to one of the most insidious aspects of the proposed MN Red Flag law; once adjudicated, one must somehow prove he is not a threat.
As I understand the intended law,
It is apparently not enough that they cannot prove you are a threat. And the level of evidence (for lack of a more correct legal term) is somewhere above a preponderance of evidence; the requirement for a civil suit, but just short of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous. Guilty until proven innocent by your attorney at the expense of your life savings.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests