US Gun Laws

[Daniel]

No where criminals get them is not a point worth speaking of when we are speaking of legal regulation, therefore it is a silent point.

I think someone is confused

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&expId...f6c4cbd0bbfd1c

[Daniel]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but in this case the spelling is indeed 'moot'.

Are you sure?

[Bob Riebe]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but in this case the spelling is indeed 'moot'.

Moot means impractical.

Laws to govern illegal weapons are not impractical, they are foolish. Such a point should be muted, silenced, because at best it is foolish, or at worse is a farce to fool the populace.

[markabilly]

. The second Amendment exists to arm citizens to protect them against the government taking away their Constitutional rights.
.

No better example can be found than the American Revolution. It was not a real revolution but a reactionary response to Great Britain's actions, when Great Britain decided to more strenously in impose more control and take away rights that the famrmers and others believed worthy of protection to the point gving their lives in defense.

In the absence of those guns, there would have been no independance. The continued presence of those weapons continues to provide a concrete assurance to people like me, that mere words and empty promises of "freedom" from some government official will never have.

[Daniel]

Moot means impractical.

Laws to govern illegal weapons are not impractical, they are foolish. Such a point should be muted, silenced, because at best it is foolish, or at worse is a farce to fool the populace.

You really should go back to school. It's nothing to do with impractical.

[markabilly]

You really should go back to school. It's nothing to do with impractical.

and your post has nothing to do with the topic. We, and even you, knew exactly what he meant.

[Rollo]

Laws to govern illegal weapons are not impractical, they are foolish. Such a point should be muted, silenced, because at best it is foolish, or at worse is a farce to fool the populace.

They work in Australia. Illegal weapons where discovered are confiscated by the police, and the people who were in possession of them are charged.
In NSW the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, covers this quite effectively.

[Daniel]

and your post has nothing to do with the topic. We, and even you, knew exactly what he meant.

If he wants to be taken seriously though, he should try to talk some sense and try and spell properly.

[markabilly]

If he wants to be taken seriously though, he should try to talk some sense and try and spell properly.

form over substance is always more important, no doubt in academic debates in the opinion of many, but I think he has talked sense that many others should see easy enough, but no, I guess not

[Daniel]

form over substance is always more important, no doubt in academic debates in the opinion of many, but I think he has talked sense that many others should see easy enough, but no, I guess not

With all due respect, the content of his posts is drivel.

You can't use words with a completely different meaning to the intended message and expect people to understand let alone take you seriously.....