How A Rational Debate On Guns Actually Goes:

[mzmadmike]

"Do guns exist?"

"No!"

"I'm sorry you have chosen not to live in the real world.  Next."

"Do guns exist?"
"Yes."

"What can you do about it?"

"We could ban them."

"I'm sorry, there are hundreds of millions of them, and the Constitution and Supreme Court say they're a right."

"I don't like that.  It shouldn't be true."

"I'm sorry you have chosen not

Comments

[septithol]

Google 'Moloch' sometime

[septithol]

Then of course there are the modern-day Moloch worshipping parents who won't get their child the vaccine against the HPV virus, and would prefer to let their child die of cancer, because it makes them emotionally uncomfortable to contemplate their child having sex. How exactly their child came to exist in the first place without sex, isn't quite clear to me. I was under the previous impression that most people got pregnant by having sex, but apparently without my knowledge, that must have now been replaced either by artificial insemination, or immaculate conception.

[septithol]

And yet more irrationality...

"The NRA missed a huge opportunity to move in the direction of compromise. Instead of offering a major contribution to the gun debate, which is what they promised, we got the same old tired clichés," said Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Now, where have I heard something like this before... "Galileo missed a huge opportunity to move in the direction of comprimise. Instead of offering a major contribition to the Earth Centric debate, which is what he promised, we got the same old tired cliche from him -'Nevertheless it moves'-" said Winkler, an officer of the Holy Inquisition....