Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

if Sandy, and Moore, have shown us anything, life is given and taken in tragedy every day, I am done trying to explain why "just one life" is an emotionally cynical push to get a bad law passed that normally would not have a chance.

1)Sandy and Moore are two completely different thing and Ray Charles could see that.
2) It's not that "you're done explaining" ,fact is you still haven't come up with any good reason yet why if a law that one side says won't work anyway, saves just one life ...is a bad law .

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

1)Sandy and Moore are two completely different thing and Ray Charles could see that.
2) It's not that "you're done explaining" ,fact is you still haven't come up with any good reason yet why if a law that one side says won't work anyway, saves just one life ...is a bad law .

Fact is you have not responded with one reason that says it is not a bad law, and I have listed several reasons why the justification of "saving just one life" is a bad method for writing new laws.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

1)Sandy and Moore are two completely different thing and Ray Charles could see that.
2) It's not that "you're done explaining" ,fact is you still haven't come up with any good reason yet why if a law that one side says won't work anyway, saves just one life ...is a bad law .

A law that saves one life is just a bad law. Then we would not have anymore buckets, electricity, cars, bikes, plane, trains, bath tub, showers, etc... I could go on all day. Just about everything we make has killed one person in some way so if your willing to make a law to save one life lets not stop there.

BTW I forgot football and how many people have died playing the game.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

A law that saves one life is just a bad law. .

If any parent that has lost a child has a choice and that one law would save their child how much you wanna bet it wouldn't be a bad law?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

If any parent that has lost a child has a choice and that one law would save their child how much you wanna bet it wouldn't be a bad law?

They have already lost a child, how would that law save anyone? All your suggesting is allowing piss poor parenting to be hand-held by the rest of society.

No.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

They have already lost a child, how would that law save anyone? All your suggesting is allowing piss poor parenting to be hand-held by the rest of society.

No.

wow, this is........wow.



I didn't realize pro gun nuts could be this ignorant, I was wrong.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

wow, this is........wow.



I didn't realize pro gun nuts could be this ignorant, I was wrong.

You're really not very articulate, are you? "Wow"? You come across as a Twittering teenage girl, not a particularly bright one either.

Just point out where I'm wrong, bed-wetter. Try. Go on.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You're really not very articulate, are you? "Wow"? You come across as a Twittering teenage girl, not a particularly bright one either.

Just point out where I'm wrong, bed-wetter. Try. Go on.

Your assumption that all child deaths or violence is due to "piss poor parenting" , is moronic. You also need to learn how to read . #93

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Giantone

If any parent that has lost a child has a choice and that one law would save their child how much you wanna bet it wouldn't be a bad law?

Then address the post above yours.
Would you ban field trips?

(this is so looney I cant believe I'm even asking this question)

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Then address the post above yours.
Would you ban field trips?

(this is so looney I cant believe I'm even asking this question)

Consider it an act of charity. Keeping GiantOne from annoying members of another forum.