Libs: Why aren't cars prohibited if drunks kill 27 people per day? (global warming, weapons)
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.
All they would have to do is require a simple app on all smart phones that disables the screen while the phone is in motion and they could save more lives from texting and driving caused accidents in a month than killed by guns in a year.
Because of money and who pulls their strings. Liberals are nothing but useful morons.
But the gun deaths would still occur. The two are not equivalent.
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.
Because cars aren't "designed" to kill but guns are, and cars have practical use and guns don't. That's their argument.
Alcohol beverages would be a much better comparison as alcohol beverages have absolutely no practical use and are designed to kill but we have a constitution amendment to not ban alcohol.
You made an assertion about what my agenda was. You can't back that, fine. Open mouth, insert foot.
I made an assertion that your true aim was something other than "eliminating deaths". Either that is your aim or it isn't. Only you can answer that question and yet you have dodged the question twice now.
Because cars aren't "designed" to kill but guns are, and cars have practical use and guns don't. That's their argument.
Alcohol beverages would be a much better comparison as alcohol beverages have absolutely no practical use and are designed to kill but we have a constitution amendment to not ban alcohol.
In rare instances alcohol will kill more than one person, indirectly.
Because cars aren't "designed" to kill but guns are, and cars have practical use and guns don't. That's their argument.
Alcohol beverages would be a much better comparison as alcohol beverages have absolutely no practical use and are designed to kill but we have a constitution amendment to not ban alcohol.
Because libs are smarter than to think that makes any sense.
(Righties are terrible at processing nuances.)
Because it's important for Libs to feel smarter right? Because that is the root of almost all of their hair brained ideas. The need for acceptance, the need to be looked at as enlightened and smart. Especially by their Liberal cult.
Because cars aren't "designed" to kill but guns are, and cars have practical use and guns don't. That's their argument.
Alcohol beverages would be a much better comparison as alcohol beverages have absolutely no practical use and are designed to kill but we have a constitution amendment to not ban alcohol.
Right. So because THEY personally don't have a use for a firearm they want to make the leap and say NO ONE has a legitimate use for a firearm.
It is the quintessential totalitarian mindset, and why the right to bear arms was listed in the Bill of Rights.
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.
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.