Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just wondering... if a nutbag went into a school with big chainsaw and chopped up a bunch of kids would we be demanding chainsaw control? I don't think we would.
Guns are tools, just like chainsaws are tools. Either has a legitimate use and can be used to cause great harm to others.
So when these things happen. why do we focus so much on the tool but not the operator of the tool?
Don't be ridiculous. Chainsaws are tools. Guns are weapons. Only an idiot would confuse the two.
Maybe we should ban flicks like "The Texas Chainsaw Murders." Evidently people can't handle them.
The hilarious part of all this is that you guys ACTUALLY BELIEVE this pretzel logic argument. If it was not so sickeningly sociopathic it would be hilarious.
Sorry, I forgot guns now get up and shoot people by themselves.
And just saying "you're stupid" isn't an argument... it means you have no argument but don't want to admit it.
Sorry, I forgot guns now get up and shoot people by themselves.
And just saying "you're stupid" isn't an argument... it means you have no argument but don't want to admit it.
Believe me, I know better than to "argue" with a gun cultist. Or a Trump cultist. It's like debating something with a religious fanatic, or a toddler. What's the point in such a debate? Debates are only useful when both parties are willing and able to look at facts and science. Furthermore, debates are only useful where parties are willing to compromise. I don't see that happening anytime soon for most of the gun rights extremists here on C-D.
Don't be ridiculous. Chainsaws are tools. Guns are weapons. Only an idiot would confuse the two.
Maybe we should ban flicks like "The Texas Chainsaw Murders." Evidently people can't handle them.
Weapons are tools. They have no intent, nor will of their own. They must be used by a HUMAN to do anything. These tools help keep me, and my family safe from harm. Otherwise we'd be defenseless from those that want take our stuff, and do us bodily harm. Evil exists in the world, and guns are an equalizer.
Don't be ridiculous. Chainsaws are tools. Guns are weapons. Only an idiot would confuse the two.
Maybe we should ban flicks like "The Texas Chainsaw Murders." Evidently people can't handle them.
Exactly. The same is true of cars and knives and swimming pools, which the gun enthusiasts also love to cite as being dangerous. Except all of those things have a central purpose which doesn't include killing.
What is the purpose of a handgun or a semiautomatic weapon? There's only one thing they are created to do.
Sorry, I forgot guns now get up and shoot people by themselves.
And just saying "you're stupid" isn't an argument... it means you have no argument but don't want to admit it.
This is another old saw, self-shooting guns. Anything to take attention away from the fact that a weapon of mass destruction, the AR-15, was used by an ordinary person to kill children.
Are you saying we should ban only guns that shoot by themselves? Is that your solution?
Weapons are tools. They have no intent, nor will of their own. They must be used by a HUMAN to do anything. These tools help keep me, and my family safe from harm. Otherwise we'd be defenseless from those that want take our stuff, and do us bodily harm. Evil exists in the world, and guns are an equalizer.
I understand this line of thinking. It still doesn't mean that adjustments and changes to now standing preventative measures are not necessary. And changes need to be forward thinking first, meaning simply in some manner make it more difficult to own a gun with even better vetting. And if that means a law abiding citizen has to go through more hoops and ladders to attain a gun, then so be it.
And to further quote your self, if changing the constitution is what your are looking for, that process has been done on multiple occasions, it requires a constitutional convention and at least 34 states to ratify it.
My point wasn’t to ask you to tell me how to amend the Constituon. Obviously it has been done before.
Any other counter point you want to make to seem “illogical” for controlling/banning?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
