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.
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.
Nuclear weapons aren't designed to kill either. They were designed to be a deterrent against killing.
FACT: If cars were banned and mass transit became the way for people to get around again thousands of lives would be saved a year. And your global warming agenda would be pushed as well.
So why guns? There are so many other ways to save so many more lives.
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.
I've been an owner and a shooter since 1965. I spent 20 years in the USN and swung a Ma Deuce for a living at one point. But you can make sweeping generalizations if you wish.
I've been an owner and a shooter since 1965. I spent 20 years in the USN and swung a Ma Deuce for a living at one point. But you can make sweeping generalizations if you wish.
Seems like you used to have some common sense. What happened?
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?
Not only do you have to pass a test, you first have to take classes to ensure you understand how to safely operate a vehicle. No one bats an eye at that, nor should they, as a car can be deadly in the hands of someone who shouldn't be behind the wheel. Why is owning a gun different?
I've asked this of gun fanatics many, many times. There is never a coherent answer, because the question is simply too common-sense for a fanatic to have the capacity to respond to.
Now...how soon will someone come back with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! And conveniently leave out the whole "well regulated militia" part. Why do they always omit that crucial qualifier, I wonder?
There has been a thousand threads on this subject and the bottom line is this:
1) We already fail to enforce the existing laws we do have so why are you advocating to add more? Start there first.
2) Nearly every new "idea" or bill proposed after an incidence of gun violence will be shown to not have had an effect on the tragedy we are knee jerk proposing ideas to try to eliminate.
3) Most, if not all, restrictions on gun ownership do NOTHING to reduce crimes with guns, but rather they serve to make guns and ammunition more expensive and less available to the law abiding citizen.
Not only do you have to pass a test, you first have to take classes to ensure you understand how to safely operate a vehicle. No one bats an eye at that, nor should they, as a car can be deadly in the hands of someone who shouldn't be behind the wheel. Why is owning a gun different?
I've asked this of gun fanatics many, many times. There is never a coherent answer, because the question is simply too common-sense for a fanatic to have the capacity to respond to.
Now...how soon will someone come back with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! And conveniently leave out the whole "well regulated militia" part. Why do they always omit that crucial qualifier, I wonder?
It is not a "qualifier".
That is absurd and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding concerning the writings and viewpoints of the founding fathers who wrote it. It is all out there on the web for anyone who wishes to educate themselves about what the founders thoughts were concerning the individuals right to bear arms.
I'll give you a small hint.
They had just won a revolution against the oppressive British crown with the crucial aid of ordinary every day citizens bearing their personal firearms.
You don't "arm" yourself with a car now do you? Not exactly an efficient way to kill someone. Now a gun, that's a really efficient way to kill things.
For the equivalence to work a driver would have to be ready to kill someone with his vehicle if the need arose, like, for example, someone spilled a beer on him.
You don't "arm" yourself with a car now do you? Not exactly an efficient way to kill someone. Now a gun, that's a really efficient way to kill things.
Yeah, just ask all those people in Nice, France.
I'm sure they'll agree with your assertion.
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.
