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.
So killing people is okay, as long as it happens slowly
Bottom line: liberals want to disarm everyone. Why stop at guns? Why not ban martial arts too? We have a bunch of laws that say who can sell a gun to hell, but none saying who can teach martial arts to who or what martial arts can be taught...how is that not hypocrisy?
Because guns are not banned and will never be, at least not in our lifetime. Now if guns were illegal, then maybe, and a big maybe you could have a point.
So your premise right off the bat is just plain stupid.
Automobiles are regulated, according to your logic they are banned.
What do you need to learn how to kill people with your bear hands in a martial arts school? Background checks? Waiting lists?
...well?
We all know how to kill someone with our bear hands without going to martial arts school. By your logic, we should ban hands.
People who want guns banned don't own them. Since you're arguing this with hands, why not act as you argue and get rid of your hands? You'll be doing us all a favor.
No, the literal translation is that this is a ridiculous argument.
Hands and feet kill people, and with martial arts you can become more effective in learning how to kill people with your hands and feet. There are no laws regulating martial arts, and liberals are fine with that.
Guns kill people, and there are already a ton of laws regulating guns, EVEN THOUGH, UNLIKE MARTIAL ARTS, GUNS ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Yet, the liberals want even more laws and regulations on guns.
No constitutional guarantee to learn martial arts, martial arts can be used to kill people, and no regulations: liberals don't care.
Constitutional guarantee to bear arms, arms can be used to kill people, all kinds of laws already on the books that restrict guns: liberals want more laws.
How is that not hypocrisy and how is that not a valid point?
What do you need to learn how to kill people with your bear hands in a martial arts school? Background checks? Waiting lists?
...well?
If you are strong enough you don't need to take martial arts to be able to kill someone with your bare, hands.
Listen I get what you are trying to say but it's really a lame and stupid argument. All you had to say is that the second amendment of the constitution guarantees your right to bear arms and I can't counter that, not until an amendment overturning it is passed.
But you come up with these stupid moronic fantasy scenarios of ninjas with swords killing 20 children. Pathetic.
We all know how to kill someone with our bear hands without going to martial arts school. By your logic, we should ban hands.
Like I already said a half dozen times, someone with martial arts training is a lot deadlier than someone without. It takes training to become this good:
And yet, no liberals are saying we should restrict that training...why?
Quote:
People who want guns banned don't own them. Since you're arguing this with hands, why not act as you argue and get rid of your hands? You'll be doing us all a favor.
That is a strawman. I am talking about a FORM OF COMBAT. The form of combat IS THE WEAPON.
If you make the argument that "there is no justifiable reason for someone to own a AK-47", than you also have to accept the argument that "there is no justifiable reason for someone to learn kung fu." Simple logic that liberals don't understand.
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.