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.
We need cars to get to work, they have a function in society
By the way we changed the laws of the country to allow random traffic stops, it reduced fatalities due to alcohol. Ask to expand background checks or just limit types of weapons and you would think the world as we know it had ended.
True, owning and or driving a vehicle isn't a right.
So, any vehicle made that goes over 10 mph would be illegal, with jail time and loss of driving privileges, if in possession. Common sense auto legislation, to reduce drunk driving deaths, needs to be implemented.
Libs: Why aren't cars prohibited if drunks kill 27 people per day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
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.
Let's extend this ridiculous "analogy" to maximize public safety.
Don't just ban cars. Trucks of all kinds, railroads, airlines, horse drawn wagons, ox carts and all other forms of transport other than foot.
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.
Another analogy. Tobacco use - the major cause of cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease and lung cancer - is responsible for approximately one in every ten adult deaths worldwide. Let's ban tobacco.
But tobacco isn't intended to kill - it just does, frequently. Automobiles aren't built to kill, but they do anyway, and whether the drivers involved are under the influence or not.
What are guns intended to do? What is their primary function?
To kill.
Sure, people collect guns and show guns and use guns for target practice and competitive shooting.
But the purpose - not a by-product, but the purpose - of a gun is to kill. That's not true of an automobile, and that's not true of tobacco.
Should guns be banned? No. I've spent most of my life living in open-carry states, states with long and rich traditions in hunting. I am fine with responsible gun ownership.
To get back to your analogy, automobiles and guns are similar in that neither one is dangerous by itself. It's only when a human is added - as the driver of a car or a user of a gun - that those inanimate objects become dangerous, and potentially lethal.
With automobiles and drivers, there's registration and licensing and inspections and insurance and manufacturer's recalls and many state laws regarding the safe and proper use of said automobiles.
I suspect there's plenty of support for similar common-sense laws and regulations regarding the sale and ownership of guns. The Supreme Court, in their Heller decision, affirmed that such laws and regulations are Constitutional.
Quote:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time†finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Thats nothing over 500 people have been killed by road debris and there have been tens of thousands of injuries and over 200,000 vehical crashes because of debris that falls off vehicles.
Yeah, just ask all those people in Nice, France.
I'm sure they'll agree with your assertion.
Still not an efficient means to kill. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it's primary purpose is to kill things. The only purpose of a gun is to be an efficient weapon. Target practice is there to help you get better... at killing things.
Still not an efficient means to kill. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it's primary purpose is to kill things. The only purpose of a gun is to be an efficient weapon. Target practice is there to help you get better... at killing things.
My wife likes to shoot, but she'd never shoot someone. I've taught her how to be effective at defense regardless of whether or not she's armed.
My wife likes to shoot, but she'd never shoot someone. I've taught her how to be effective at defense regardless of whether or not she's armed.
That's nice. I can use grenades to blow stuff up... cause I can. I can buy a tank to show it off and not use it... or bring it to an open field to shoot at stuff.
Just because you don't use it for that function, doesn't take away from the fact that it's primary purpose is to kill.
We need cars to get to work, they have a function in society
By the way we changed the laws of the country to allow random traffic stops, it reduced fatalities due to alcohol. Ask to expand background checks or just limit types of weapons and you would think the world as we know it had ended.
They've all but done away with dui check points because too many illegals were having their cars impounded.
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.
Libs: Why aren't cars prohibited if drunks kill 27 people per day?
