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.
Liberals always, after any reported deaths involving firearms, are quick to shout for banning of guns, ammunition, and restrict the rights of those who have not committed any crime.
The analogy would be advocating the banning of all automobiles, as drunk drivers kill 27 people per day. Forget the fact that the vast majority of drivers do not kill anyone- we must ban all automobiles to prevent drunk drivers from killing people.
The argument generally goes that guns are designed to kill while cars are designed to transport. The fact that, due to user error, auto fatalities are high, especially when alcohol is a factor, is irrelevant to the purpose of the object in question.
A more interesting question is why isn't alcohol banned when things like pot are banned for being unsafe? IT's a question the moral conservatives (in contrast to the more libertarian conservatives) don't really think is important either. However, that's a better question than the one you're asking. Alcohol and pot are both intoxicants and both can effect a person's judgment in very negative ways when used in excess, but only one is banned. Guns are cars really don't have much in common.
That said, unlike most liberals, I don't support more gun control.
Stupid analogy but nonetheless, consider: you have to be licensed and pass a test to use one. Let's do the same for guns, OK?
I need an ID to purchase a weapon from a "legal gun dealer"
I do not need an ID to vote.
This is backassward!!
The right to vote says "Citizen" so showing an ID to prove Citizenship and Residence, would be reasonable and common sense.
The right to arms says, "People" Why would an ID ever be needed to prove the individual is a person? That makes no sense. Is it to prove we are people? LOL Makes no sense at all.
I need an ID to purchase a weapon from a "legal gun dealer"
I do not need an ID to vote.
This is backassward!!
The right to vote says "Citizen" so showing an ID to prove Citizenship and Residence, would be reasonable and common sense.
The right to arms says, "People" Why would an ID ever be needed to prove the individual is a person? That makes no sense. Is it to prove we are people? LOL Makes no sense at all.
Anybody comes in here with evil on their minds gets hurt. I don't need a gun to defend myself or my family. I used to teach violence, and I haven't forgotten any of it. While you're digging for your gun I'll be in the fight and loving it.
Ask a policeman if he hopes to use his gun today. I'll wait. (Jeopardy theme plays.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer
I don't like to fight, I'm just good enough at it to teach.
You're full of hot air. You won't be doing a damn thing if they come crashing through your door with guns drawn. You would have a chance if you had your own gun, but go ahead and live in your fantasy world how you would "fight" the weapon out of their hands. Whatever "Chuck Norris".
As for all other replies, the DUMBEST deflection that I've ever seen is the arguement that cars aren't made to kill so therefore nothing should be done to try to reduce deaths from them. No one "arms" themselves with a car...oh really? You all living in some bubble? Instead of avoiding answering, which makes you look like a total moron, why don't you answer why something isn't done about the drunk drivers out there and their constant slap on the wrists before they finally kill someone.
You're full of hot air. You won't be doing a damn thing if they come crashing through your door with guns drawn. You would have a chance if you had your own gun, but go ahead and live in your fantasy world how you would "fight" the weapon out of their hands. Whatever "Chuck Norris".
I know you have to say that because you have no other rebuttal.
You guys don't get it and obviously never will. But just for grins I'll point out again that gun control and assault rifle restrictions does NOT mean liberals want to ban all guns. I have no idea how many times we need to tell you this.
Shall not be infringed... Read that slowly, so it may one day sink in deep enough to be retained.
Liberty is unlimited choice.
The founders were not about to restrict the liberties of the people. That is why they clearly wrote "ARMS" to mean unlimited. They wrote, "shall not be infringed" so the government would never be able to limit the choices or completely take them away. The people were to be armed better than the government.
They had the quill in hand and ink on the table. It would have been very easy to get specific. Why didn't they?
Why not, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep a musket, powder & ball" ??????
Why not, " to keep but never bear, what government allows"
Why not, "this right can be altered upon the governments demand"
Why did they use "PEOPLE" and not Citizen?
Why didn't they say people 21 years or older?
Why didn't they say non-felons?
They had the quill and ink, right there, with space to spare.
They can ban all weapons except a single shot bb rifle and we would still have the choice, right? The freedom to choose for ourselves from 2 choices - Have the single shot bb gun, or don't have the single shot bb gun, you still have a choice, government took nothing.
You see, any restriction, or attempted restriction, meant certain death to those wanting to enslave and oppress us.
Meaning those that even bring it up, are suppose to die on the spot, by that very right, that shall never be infringed.
The argument generally goes that guns are designed to kill while cars are designed to transport. The fact that, due to user error, auto fatalities are high, especially when alcohol is a factor, is irrelevant to the purpose of the object in question.
A more interesting question is why isn't alcohol banned when things like pot are banned for being unsafe? IT's a question the moral conservatives (in contrast to the more libertarian conservatives) don't really think is important either. However, that's a better question than the one you're asking. Alcohol and pot are both intoxicants and both can effect a person's judgment in very negative ways when used in excess, but only one is banned. Guns are cars really don't have much in common.
That said, unlike most liberals, I don't support more gun control.
They actually changed laws relative to automobiles that resulted in fewer fatalities due to alcohol.
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.
