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.
Not sure how many people buy guns vs cars with lethal intent, but considering the question is worth a moment. Is it not?
No it is not. Most people who purchase a firearm do not purchase it with lethal intent. They purchase it for self protection should the event arise, for sporting, or hunting. Lethal intent is only that of the criminal. There is no more lethal intent of most gun owners than there is of you getting in the seat of your Yugo. One bullet typically kills one person when it occurs. Your Yugo is capable of killing a number of people. It is your responsibility to handle your Yugo in a safe manner. It is my responsibility to handle my firearm in a safe manner. Driving your Yugo on the highways is a privilege afforded to you by your state. My firearm is a "RIGHT" afforded to me by the Constitution.
No it is not. Most people who purchase a firearm do not purchase it with lethal intent. They purchase it for self protection should the event arise, for sporting, or hunting. Lethal intent is only that of the criminal. There is no more lethal intent of most gun owners than there is of you getting in the seat of your Yugo. One bullet typically kills one person when it occurs. Your Yugo is capable of killing a number of people. It is your responsibility to handle your Yugo in a safe manner. It is my responsibility to handle my firearm in a safe manner. Driving your Yugo on the highways is a privilege afforded to you by your state. My firearm is a "RIGHT" afforded to me by the Constitution.
Protection is not lethal intent, or something like the threat of death or injury when thinking protection?
Come on now...
You buy a car with any similar consideration? I think not, and that's my point. The sale of guns is nothing like the sale of cars. If we can't agree on this, we're obviously not being reasonable...
No, of course not, but I think my "ideas" are more in line with what the Constitution and those who wrote it had in mind.
While I realize your vast understanding of what the framers of the constitution had in mind, for some peculiar reason, the Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with your contentions. You need to address this with them and straighten them out.
Protection is not lethal intent, or something like the threat of death or injury when thinking protection?
Come on now...
You buy a car with any similar consideration? I think not, and that's my point. The sale of guns is nothing like the sale of cars. If we can't agree on this, we're obviously not being reasonable...
YOu're right., The purchase of a car is a luxury afforded to you by your state. The purchase of a firearm is afforded you as your RIGHT under the constitution.
While I realize your vast understanding of what the framers of the constitution had in mind, for some peculiar reason, the Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with your contentions. You need to address this with them and straighten them out.
How so? I have no such "vast" knowledge, but clearly you have yours that you are much wanting to demonstrate, but rather than just say so, how about you show me how the Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with my contentions? Please...
Best I know, the Supreme Court has upheld (more than once) we can have gun control legislation that does not contradict the 2nd Amendment.
What knowledge, "vast" or otherwise, have you got to learn us better?
YOu're right., The purchase of a car is a luxury afforded to you by your state. The purchase of a firearm is afforded you as your RIGHT under the constitution.
You really MUST be kidding!
Both are consumer products, both profitable. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to go from there, but please don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar when it comes to this issue, because on that too, you prove yourself far from having any sort of "vast" knowledge.
How so? I have no such "vast" knowledge, but clearly you have yours that you are much wanting to demonstrate, but rather than just say so, how about you show me how the Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with my contentions? Please...
Best I know, the Supreme Court has upheld (more than once) we can have gun control legislation that does not contradict the 2nd Amendment.
What knowledge, "vast" or otherwise, have you got to learn us better?
That the framers of the constitution indeed saw a need for citizens to be able to stand up to the Tyranny of a government gone astray from the constitution. The framers intent was never to allow firearms only in the interest of hunting or sport.
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.
Vast?
