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.
Knives are used more often to kill people than so called assault weapons. You'd think somone with intelligence would see that and not prove how uninformed they are. Sanders can't help himself.
The "Left" do understand the consequences of disarming victims. They're the thieves seeking to steal private property... and wish to avoid being shot.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
In other words, you can't have a benevolent totalitarian police state -and- a populace armed and ready to defend their persons and property from predators.
I make zombie killing weapons for people, I don't think anyone has ever killed a zombie with one, but if they ever decide to use one on people, well, I don't want to be there..........
Knives are used more often to kill people than so called assault weapons. You'd think somone with intelligence would see that and not prove how uninformed they are. Sanders can't help himself.
This is the dumbest possible logic. This is like saying cancer research needs to be stopped because more people die from heart disease.
Exactly! Also similar to saying people should be allowed to go around with grenade launchers, because after all, more people die from knives than grenade launchers....we should all be allowed to have anything that kills less people than knives!
The "Left" do understand the consequences of disarming victims. They're the thieves seeking to steal private property... and wish to avoid being shot.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
In other words, you can't have a benevolent totalitarian police state -and- a populace armed and ready to defend their persons and property from predators.
Good post. That is what it boils down too. ^^^ Add mistrust of a government and crime gone wild and why would any sane person want to limit arms.
The "Left" do understand the consequences of disarming victims. They're the thieves seeking to steal private property... and wish to avoid being shot.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
In other words, you can't have a benevolent totalitarian police state -and- a populace armed and ready to defend their persons and property from predators.
Hypothetically speaking: If that "police state" really came into fruition do you think the average gun owner would really have a fighting chance against the government?
And since we're making blanket statements here, aren't the "Right" the ones who invaded other countries to steal natural resources?
Hypothetically speaking: If that "police state" really came into fruition do you think the average gun owner would really have a fighting chance against the government?
And since we're making blanket statements here, aren't the "Right" the ones who invaded other countries to steal natural resources?
Even if a gun owner didn't stand a chance, do you think that people would just want to lay down and give up? Or do you think that people want to have a chance?
More killings w blades does not equal more *successful attempts* in comparison to guns.
That is a world of difference.
This seems like another circle around back to the "car accidents" analogy and the same rationale of "why don't they just take our phones and cars away"......
Not a good argument. I could spend 5 paragraphs explaining why but I've learned by experience that few listen to common sense and reason here on this issue. But they love their strawmen arguments!
More killings w blades does not equal more *successful attempts* in comparison to guns.
That is a world of difference.
This seems like another circle around back to the "car accidents" analogy and the same rationale of "why don't they just take our phones and cars away"......
Not a good argument. I could spend 5 paragraphs explaining why but I've learned by experience that few listen to common sense and reason here on this issue. But they love their strawmen arguments!
Its funny. Critics on both side of the argument say the same thing about the other side. And both sides say they are right.
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.
