[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

We have done a lot to reduce DUI traffic fatalities. Since the 80's the number of DUI caused traffic fatalities have been cut in half,

Gun homicides have also been cut in half in that same period. In the end, over 11,000 DUI deaths a year is not acceptable and the only way to bring that number to 0 is banning alcohol or automobiles.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

Because alcohol in and of itself is not a mass murder device. An ar15 can be, more so than a shotgun for example.

It's a fallacious argument

It kills 11,000 people a year in DUI alone and many more if we look at other forms of death. You're making a distinction that does not exist in practice.

[chopchop0]

]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

.

And I don't know what I'm talking about? You don't know even the basics of our 2nd amendment, the bill of rights, the 14th amendment, or even what an assault rifle really is.

The 2nd amendment was written at the time where we had muskets, so yes you don't know what you're talking about

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

]



The 2nd amendment was written at the time where we had muskets, so yes you don't know what you're talking about

The 2nd amendment didn't specify muskets. It specified firearms.

So if you think the 2nd amendment is outdated, you need to pass another amendment. That's what the FF allowed for. Good luck getting 2/3s of the states or the senators to agree though.

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

It kills 11,000 people a year in DUI alone and many more if we look at other forms of death. You're making a distinction that does not exist in practice.

And you're making a connection that does not exist in practice.

Gun nuts argue that gun statistics include a bunch of suicides. Well so do DUI ones.

The difference is, alcohol, knives etc can't run up the body count quickly like a semi auto rifle with a bump stock can.

A real libertarian would not infringe on the right to life and safety by others. There needs to be harsh punishments for all types of gun crime and more regulation before being able to buy a semi-automatic rifle

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

The 2nd amendment didn't specify muskets. It specified firearms.

So if you think the 2nd amendment is outdated, you need to pass another amendment. That's what the FF allowed for. Good luck getting 2/3s of the states or the senators to agree though.

"Arms" that existed when it was written were muskets.

The founding fathers could never conceptualize what we have now.

In another century, you'll probably say we should be able to have plasma rifles lmao.

With your logic, I should be able to keep an RPG at my house for self defense. Ludicrous

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

Gun nuts argue that gun statistics include a bunch of suicides. Well so do DUI ones.

No they don't. You pulled that out of nowhere. But most suicides involve heavy drinking first whether the person uses a gun, a rope, jumps, or pain medicine.

The difference is, alcohol, knives etc can't run up the body count quickly like a semi auto rifle with a bump stock can.

There are just 375 mass shooting deaths a year on average. But 11,000 deaths by DUI. Tell me which is worse?

I thought you guys prided yourself on being intelligent and rational?

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

"Arms" that existed when it was written were muskets.

Arms are generic for all firearms. They didn't just include muskets but cannons as well. But anyways, if you think today there is a need to ban certain firearms then the 2nd amendment is outdated and go ahead and try pass a new amendment.

If you can't convince 2/3s of the senators or state legislatures, then it's really not outdated. So stop the sophistry.

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

There are just 375 mass shooting deaths a year on average. But 11,000 deaths by DUI. Tell me which is worse?

I thought you guys prided yourself on being intelligent and rational?

You clearly can't comprehend the definition of a mass murder, so no point in discussing this further

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

You clearly can't comprehend the definition of a mass murder, so no point in discussing this further

When you're out of arguments, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it. This way, you just look pathetic.