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.
You would not know my agenda if it fell from the sky on your face and started to wiggle. Scard to vote? The question is simple and I have no "agenda" but information. If you kenw that giving up your semi auto would save a kids life would you give them up? This is not saying that a ban would save one single life or a thousand. Its a question to see what the mentality and morality of gun owners is. I think your scard to answer the question or to see how gun owners will act.
Then why just kids? Is every other person expendable? Me thinks your agenda is showing.
I love how when a neocon can not answer the question they dance and squirm to change the question. Its a simple question. I am not saying it will, will not could or could not work. I am saying if you had a time machine, what ever you want to call it and you knew for a fact that a gun ban on semi auto guns would save a life would you give up your guns?
You just can't answer the question. Its also not a loaded question, thats when did you quit beating your wife. If you answer yes or no you admit that you beat your wife. Learn what your talking about.
Its a simple ethical question. If it would save one kids life would you give up your semi auto rifles?
You are acting like Eric Cantor after the vote failed last night. Scard and nervous. Just answer the question. Its simple its just a simple ethical question. Would you push one fat person who was about to die in three weeks over a bridge if when he hit it stopped a run away bus and saved 20 kids?
So would you give up your semi autos if it saved one kids life?
Hey,guess what?
There's a Psychology or a Philosophy forum right here on C-D. Take your pick if that's the real intent behind your question.
Would you buy a semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles (not true), if it would save one kid's life?
As I told the other idiot, fair ethical question but this is my post and you are free to ask it in your post. But it still stands you just can't answer can you? LOL every dodge makes my point. You just can't do it. I have never seen so much squirming. LMAO
Would you give up semi autos if it saved one kids life?
Hey,guess what?
There's a Psychology or a Philosophy forum right here on C-D. Take your pick if that's the real intent behind your question.
There is a question before you you will not answer so you say post it over there, or would you buy a gun to save a life. You are sweating like a ***** in church, can't answer a simple question can you.
Would you give up your semi auto guns if you knew that it would save just one kids life?
Again its dodging the question. The question is not what is at the root of the problem or what is the cause or are video games more at fault bla bla bla. The question is if you knew for a fact that a ban on assault weapons would save one 5 year olds life would you give them up? I did not ask you to qualify it or say it would or would not work. You just can't answer because you know you would not do the moral thing. How about all you gun people who are bible thumpers, WWJD if he knew that an assault weapon ban would save one child, would Jesus give them up?
Nobody is dodging anything because that is the truth, a ban on semi-autos will not make a difference.
I'm not sure why you brought Jesus into this, they didn't have semi-auto weapons 2000 years ago when Jesus walked the earth, yet they still had murderers back then. Also, read what the Bible, the New Living Translation, says in Luke 22:36 when Jesus was telling his disciples to preach the word and take up a weapon to protect themselves. "But now", he said, "Take your money and a traveler's bag. And if you don't have a sword, sell your clothes and buy one. ".
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,773 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by itlltickleurinnerds
I love how when a neocon can not answer the question they dance and squirm to change the question. Its a simple question. I am not saying it will, will not could or could not work. I am saying if you had a time machine, what ever you want to call it and you knew for a fact that a gun ban on semi auto guns would save a life would you give up your guns?
You just can't answer the question. Its also not a loaded question, thats when did you quit beating your wife. If you answer yes or no you admit that you beat your wife. Learn what your talking about.
Its a simple ethical question. If it would save one kids life would you give up your semi auto rifles?
It's because the question is silly. It's presuppostion is silly and it's phrasing is silly. I answered the question with an equally silly one. That is all it deserves. Would I give up my cell phone if it saved one child from brain cancer? Would I give up my car if it saved one child? Would I give up my kitchen knife it it saved one child? We can play this all day. And by the way, I'm not a neo-con. Very Libertarian, thank you.
The question doesn't make any logical sense (not surprisingly)...
How would a child or 1M children be saved if I gave up a rifle? The only logical conclusion is someone is demanding my rifle while holding a child or children hostage, in which case to give up my rifle would be stupid, because the only tool I would have to disarm the situation is my rifle, if I give it up, then, not only am I relying on the good will of the hostage taker to not kill the child(ren) and myself, but also for him not to use it.
If I have a rifle it's safe, I know what it's being used for, so I'm not going to go shoot anyone at random, if I give it up, then whoever I gave it to may use it to go kill kids.
So no matter the way the question is currently posed, I would not give up my rifle, which is not an option.
BS....how many children died in Chicago this year because of gun fire?
Where was the fire then? Where was all these people screaming then....oh, that's right....they did not care then....
Sorry, but this fake rage gets pretty ignorant at times....just look at all the threads here on C-D....
Were they mass shootings in what should be safe places? My brutally honest take is that inner city violence is a huge, hot mess of a complicated problem that combines poverty, crime, drugs etc. in a big ball that's hard to unravel--where do you start? It's not fair, and it's ugly that we tend to ignore inner city violence if it doesn't impact us, but it's become such a daily thing that most people don't pay attention. When violence spreads out of those areas into communities or areas where people believe they should be safe, when it's not crime or drug related, and when you're dealing with large number of victims selected randomly, the country as a whole starts to pay attention. There's nothing fake about that, but it makes a nice attempt at a talking point on your part.
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.
