Shooting in Conn. School

I wish that for one day I could live as one of these folks. the ones who go around acting as if the U.S. government is some sort of fascist regime. I mean there are people who do actually live in places like that and we've seen what life is like for them. I just want to live here, but for one day act like I live in North Korea and that Obama is a member of the Kim family. I know I could just do that anyway, but I'd feel like a fucking imbecile for it. No, I'd need the years of fox news consumption and subtle racism injections to truly live like one of them for a day, and that's just too much trouble.
 
[quote name='Clak']I wish that for one day I could live as one of these folks. the ones who go around acting as if the U.S. government is some sort of fascist regime. I mean there are people who do actually live in places like that and we've seen what life is like for them. I just want to live here, but for one day act like I live in North Korea and that Obama is a member of the Kim family. I know I could just do that anyway, but I'd feel like a fucking imbecile for it. No, I'd need the years of fox news consumption and subtle racism injections to truly live like one of them for a day, and that's just too much trouble.[/QUOTE]

There's that racism card again. Why must you always attempt to shut down conversation?

Tell me, how bad would things have to get in this country before concerns would be considered legitimate? Were they legitimate when the left claimed tyranny when Bush was in office? I await your answers.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']There's that racism card again. Why must you always attempt to shut down conversation?

Tell me, how bad would things have to get in this country before concerns would be considered legitimate? Were they legitimate when the left claimed tyranny when Bush was in office? I await your answers.[/QUOTE]
Shit, you're more touchy about "race" stuff than I am. Something to think about, holmes...especially when you're so eager to throw out terms like "the race card." You're either being obtuse or have a complex about it.

As for "tyranny," why don't you define it for us and then maybe we can have a discussion about concerns being "legitimate."
 
[quote name='dohdough']Shit, you're more touchy about "race" stuff than I am. Something to think about, holmes...especially when you're so eager to throw out terms like "the race card." You're either being obtuse or have a complex about it.

As for "tyranny," why don't you define it for us and then maybe we can have a discussion about concerns being "legitimate."[/QUOTE]

Absolute bullshit. Maybe touchy about people who fall back on accusations of racism when they have no legitimate argument to present. You know, that shit that you're famous for all over CAG.

Why should I define anything for you? Ever hear of a dictionary?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Absolute bullshit. Maybe touchy about people who fall back on accusations of racism when they have no legitimate argument to present. You know, that shit that you're famous for all over CAG.[/quote]
That's nice and all, but Clak's post...you know, the one we're talking about, isn't making racism the central argument or his main critique of right-wing ideology.

Why should I define anything for you? Ever hear of a dictionary?
Click to expand...
Pretend(or not) that I'm dumb and explain it to me. I'm not the one accusing people of being tyrannical; YOU are. If you want us to go down that rabbit hole with you, you better give a damn good reason rather than "cuz I sez so." If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you shouldn't use it. Compare and contrast or sod off.
 
Hmmm, seems I may have hit a nerve. What is it Temp , did some black kid constantly steal your lunch money when you were a kid? Doh is right, you're touchier about race than anyone here. Did you never take a sociology class? I'm guessing no, it would have probably been hell for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Hmmm, seems I may have hit a nerve. What is it ego, did some black kid constantly steal your lunch money when you were a kid? Doh is right, you're touchier about race than anyone here. Did you never take a sociology class? I'm guessing no, it would have probably been hell for you.[/QUOTE]


Hheheheheheh, uhhh, dude, you are calling out the wrong person:roll:. Check the above posts THEN try again. By the way, I went to a 80% black school from kindergarten till 7th grade. About 80% of my friends were black. My family moved to a pretty much 0% black school from 8th grade on. Guess what? No more black friends... but a couple of asians. I had a long term relationship with a very hot puerto rican chica also. ;)


And wait, Clak, is this the same thread where you cited the military base shooting spree as an argument for gun control because all the military were armed and didn't stop the guy? I can't recall....did you ever admit to how wrong you were on that???:bouncy:
 
Pretending you are making good points instead of moving goal posts and then crying to mods when people correctly observe your actions are adding less-than-zero anything to a conversation and actually are actively trying to shut down conversation both through this site's "authority" structure and through your own bumbling bullshit = priceless.
 
If you can make the claim, then you can show the proof. Otherwise it's just a strawman.

Here you go, here's a GREAT thread on it, since you're a lazy fuck who won't bother to do the legwork:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-181279.html

Pretty much spells out there that I didn't ask to be a mod or a "Forum Guide" as they were once called, and that I accepted that I didn't even care because I wasn't actively campaigning. And it only took me four minutes. Imagine that! Having a mind like a steel trap and that points out bullshit is a good thing, I'm sorry you can't enjoy the luxury.

So have another bowl of shitflakes, boyo. It's what growing fucks like you need.

Be sure to call a mod in here too, we don't want you getting rusty.
 
Hm. I wonder of those old PMs got saved on my old computer or my old-old computer. If it's the first, then that one's still up and running and I just have to find the file. If it's the second, sadface, as that computer's hard drive died. I'll take a look and see what I can find for you, Strell.

Hm. It would appear the conversation I'm thinking of didn't happen over CAG PM, but over IM (Zeiganfreid account) back in November 2009. With your permission, I'll post the private messages I was thinking of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Realized my post above was targeted to the wrong person, fixed that. I do find it funny that, having been absent for a bit, my single use of the term "racism" brought Temp here like the fucking bat-signal brings Batman. For the record however Temp, doh is right, the accusation of racism isn't the central focus of that post, and if you had any sense you'd realize It was made to mock certain people and their mindset.

To put it simply, racism in modern conservative groups is self-evident. The proof lies in the things which they say and the actions which they take, however subtle they may be. Asking for evidence of this is akin to asking me to prove that the sky is blue, it wastes my time and makes you look a fool. This will be the last I discuss it as I did not intend to spark another argument about race.
 
[quote name='Clak']Realized my post above was targeted to the wrong person, fixed that. I do find it funny that, having been absent for a bit, my single use of the term "racism" brought Temp here like the fucking bat-signal brings Batman. For the record however Temp, doh is right, the accusation of racism isn't the central focus of that post, and if you had any sense you'd realize It was made to mock certain people and their mindset.

To put it simply, racism in modern conservative groups is self-evident. The proof lies in the things which they say and the actions which they take, however subtle they may be. Asking for evidence of this is akin to asking me to prove that the sky is blue, it wastes my time and makes you look a fool. This will be the last I discuss it as I did not intend to spark another argument about race.[/QUOTE]

Run Awwaaayyyy!!! Ruuuunn Awaaayyyy!!!!:applause: Any comment about my question on the Ft. Hood details?:roll:
 
They have no comments, facts or reasonable arguments on what was the topic.

They play the race game, the gotcha game, and the "I am smarter than you" game all day long. I would expect more from people that think so highly of themselves, but maybe I shouldn't. It is after all a video game forum.

Now watch them blame everyone around them for their own incompetence. "I'm just being stupid because you are stupid so there!"
 
[quote name='Knoell']They have no comments, facts or reasonable arguments on what was the topic.

They play the race game, the gotcha game, and the "I am smarter than you" game all day long. I would expect more from people that think so highly of themselves, but maybe I shouldn't. It is after all a video game forum.

Now watch them blame everyone around them for their own incompetence. "I'm just being stupid because you are stupid so there!"[/QUOTE]

Is an assault weapons ban constitutional?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Is an assault weapons ban constitutional?[/QUOTE]

No one knows except the Nine. They are the ones who decide constitutionality. Everyone else is merely stating their opinion which although interesting isn't worth much.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I would expect more from people that think so highly of themselves, but maybe I shouldn't.[/QUOTE]

Never expect much from people who only think highly of themselves. ;)
 
These politics threads only place on CAG i see genuine hostility, figures. I do see that because of the threat of being labelled racist, many facts and true things get overlooked, which isn't right, and there are many racist liberals and left wing people as right wing. They should ban and limit guns as the current state, buying a gun is almost like being a candybar and every nutcracker, fruitcake and gang member has access to a zillion, it's not sensible. There are no reasonable reasons to have a gun accept self defence and as a deterrent. So in my opinion one per household and very strict checks to get that would be a better system than this idea the 2nd amendment = license to ignore rational sensible discussion/ideas
 
[quote name='IRHari']Is an assault weapons ban constitutional?[/QUOTE]

How many times do you need him to dodge the question before you realize he's never going to give you a solid answer?
 
[quote name='granturismo']These politics threads only place on CAG i see genuine hostility, figures.[/quote]
Well let's be clear on this. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking in vs., but for the most part, I'd say that most of us get along fine outside of it. perdition and Javery are awesome in the fitness thread, slidecage is slidecage, even IATCG could be funny before he was banned for something else, GBAstar has a giveaway thread, and I shared tips on making a rib roast with confoocius(sp?). So most of the people here are actually very swell guys even if I STRONGLY disagree with their ideologies. It's the few that troll the hell out of vs. by throwing up strawman after strawman while making passive aggressive attacks that get most of the hatorade here.

I do see that because of the threat of being labelled racist, many facts and true things get overlooked, which isn't right, and there are many racist liberals and left wing people as right wing.
Click to expand...
I don't think that anyone can honestly deny that the left has racists in it, but that's a bit of a false equivalency to say that they're equal. When someone says that talking about race or calling someone racist is meant to shutdown a conversation, it's because they don't want to discuss it.

When I call someone a racist, and I've done so on many occasions, I always explain why in an attempt to make them less racist or at least more aware of how they think or what they do is, but people seem to equivocate being called a racist to being called a child molester because of our social conditioning to the word. But this is more of a symptom of people that prefer to just not like to think about things.

They should ban and limit guns as the current state, buying a gun is almost like being a candybar and every nutcracker, fruitcake and gang member has access to a zillion, it's not sensible. There are no reasonable reasons to have a gun accept self defence and as a deterrent. So in my opinion one per household and very strict checks to get that would be a better system than this idea the 2nd amendment = license to ignore rational sensible discussion/ideas
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree because there's nothing wrong with using a gun for sporting or hunting, despite not completely liking with the latter. Strict checks are fine, but there's nothing wrong with having more than one gun. I'm as liberal as they come and while I don't own any now, I'd eventually like to own 3 or 4...locked up in a gun safe of course. Access and checks Do need to be more stringent though.
 
This thread is one big liberal trollfest.

26974677.jpg
 
Originally Posted by IRHari
Is an assault weapons ban constitutional?
Click to expand...

[quote name='4thHorseman']How many times do you need him to dodge the question before you realize he's never going to give you a solid answer?[/QUOTE]

Ha, ha, ha, hahaha.

I already answered this. You cannot debate that you should do something by debating if you can do something.

The government can constitutionally do a lot of things. Your first reason of why they are doing it, should not be that they can do it.

This is why his question is irrelevant and doesn't need answering.

He seems to think it is the smartest point in the world though.

Now here is my own unanswered question: Can you show me something that supports an assault weapons ban?
 
[quote name='Calipso']This thread is one big liberal trollfest.

26974677.jpg
[/QUOTE]

My face when I found out sprinkles are called jimmies in some parts.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Well let's be clear on this. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking in vs., but for the most part, I'd say that most of us get along fine outside of it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, let's be clear...

[quote name='dohdough'][...]I get suspended for posts one mod agrees with in the OT forum[...][/quote]
 
I'd like to point out again that the only mention of racism was a throwaway comment in a mocking post I made, that's it. We're only discussing it because some of you saw it and it got your panties in a bunch, which again seems very telling to me.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Is an assault weapons ban constitutional?[/QUOTE]
The question you're asking is "Is a ban on scary looking guns constitutional?". Because you're not actually for banning any "assault weapon" that is actually used in the majority of assaults or violent crime.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']The question you're asking is "Is a ban on scary looking guns constitutional?". Because you're not actually for banning any "assault weapon" that is actually used in the majority of assaults or violent crime.[/QUOTE]
Funny, I thought it was pretty clear that the question is:

Are assault weapons, as defined by the federal government, unconstitutional to ban?

It'd be nice if you could at least address the question instead of jumping right to rhetorical games. Saying that it's because "they look scary" isn't really productive when no one is making the point of restricting and regulating functions based on "looks."

The answer to the question is obvious.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Funny, I thought it was pretty clear that the question is:

Are assault weapons, as defined by the federal government, unconstitutional to ban?

It'd be nice if you could at least address the question instead of jumping right to rhetorical games. Saying that it's because "they look scary" isn't really productive when no one is making the point of restricting and regulating functions based on "looks."

The answer to the question is obvious.[/QUOTE]

Actually they are because they are going after "the scary looking guns" instead of the ones with blood on them.

Please give me one fact that supports an assault weapons ban and that they should go after these guns.

It is absurd that between gang violence (mostly handguns) and suicides you have the VAST majority of deaths from guns, and yet you consistently ignore this and go after the wrong gun BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST SCARY LOOKING.

Sorry for the caps but the irony is so blatent I got excited. You have no statistics to back your cause, you consistently compare assault weapons to machine guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons (biden had that last one ;)), and then you go ahead and attempt to make the claim that you aren't against assault weapons because they are scary looking.

It really is laughable. Really.
 
It's not because they are scary looking. It is because they've been used in several mass shootings, and have capability's that over-extend what people would need a gun for in the first place. It's unnecessary to have such dangerous weapons in public circulation, some would argue it's unnecessary to have guns at all in public circulation, but then some would say it is necessary for whatever their points..however how can you say that assault weapons are necessary? That's the issue here.

Being scary looking doesn't come into it. Why anyone would argue for assault weapons to be legal is just stubborn pig headed irrational right to freedom to own or do whatever, because of listing A. B. C. It's just not i don't see why it's even an argument. The fact that government tyranny argument is used, is just ridiculous. If the government wants tyranny, you ain't gonna stop them. And wouldn't that argument be basis for owning all types of illegal weapons? The fact it's even used says to me there's no actual reasons that justify not banning them from public circulation.
 
[quote name='granturismo']It's not because they are scary looking. It is because they've been used in several mass shootings, and have capability's that over-extend what people would need a gun for in the first place. It's unnecessary to have such dangerous weapons in public circulation, some would argue it's unnecessary to have guns at all in public circulation, but then some would say it is necessary for whatever their points..however how can you say that assault weapons are necessary? That's the issue here.

Being scary looking doesn't come into it. Why anyone would argue for assault weapons to be legal is just stubborn pig headed irrational right to freedom to own or do whatever, because of listing A. B. C. It's just not i don't see why it's even an argument. The fact that government tyranny argument is used, is just ridiculous. If the government wants tyranny, you ain't gonna stop them. And wouldn't that argument be basis for owning all types of illegal weapons? The fact it's even used says to me there's no actual reasons that justify not banning them from public circulation.[/QUOTE]

It comes down to an issue of rights. If you have a "right" you don't want it to be curtailed in any way, shape or form. We as free responsible individuals should be able to police ourselves to prevent the need for government intervention. Unfortunately, based on the events of the last 30 some odd years we have shown over and over again to be incapable of being responsible gun owners. If you fail to police yourself then the government will gladly do it for you.

So gun owners have no one to blame but themselves. That said this issue will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS.
 
[quote name='granturismo']It's not because they are scary looking. It is because they've been used in several mass shootings, and have capability's that over-extend what people would need a gun for in the first place. It's unnecessary to have such dangerous weapons in public circulation, some would argue it's unnecessary to have guns at all in public circulation, but then some would say it is necessary for whatever their points..however how can you say that assault weapons are necessary? That's the issue here.

Being scary looking doesn't come into it. Why anyone would argue for assault weapons to be legal is just stubborn pig headed irrational right to freedom to own or do whatever, because of listing A. B. C. It's just not i don't see why it's even an argument. The fact that government tyranny argument is used, is just ridiculous. If the government wants tyranny, you ain't gonna stop them. And wouldn't that argument be basis for owning all types of illegal weapons? The fact it's even used says to me there's no actual reasons that justify not banning them from public circulation.[/QUOTE]

This guy is the prime example of the emotional knee jerk reaction Congress isn't supposed to have.

Do you not see that they are using your emotional reaction to push legislation that coincides with their ideals? Their legislation will not stop the mass shooting. They admit it themselves.

F&S: You touched on this subject, so I’m going to go right to reader James Taufmann, who is from Aurora, Colo., and pointed out he had a mass shooting in his town, as we all know. And he asked, “If the proposed changes that you’re advocating—banning AR-style rifles, limiting magazines to 10 rounds, tightening background checks, improving mental health services—if all that had been in effect a year prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, do you think those new laws would have prevented the massacre?”

V.P. BIDEN: No, but it would have saved lives, even if it was only one. We can’t say how many we’d save. Would it have saved one? Would it have saved three? Would it have saved 10? I don’t know. But it would have saved lives.
And when you’re talking about the relationship between saving some beautiful 6-year-old’s life, even if it’s only one, versus the ability of someone to have 30 rounds versus 10, how does that affect their right to either hunt or their right to protect themselves?
Click to expand...

F&S: Well, this brings up a common question that we got from a lot of readers, and I’ll use the reader Mike Hooker who asked this: “AR-style rifles, or what are being called assault rifles, are in fact used for many legitimate purposes. What is the reason for banning these popular rifles when, according to the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report, they are used in fewer than 1 percent of all firearm-related criminal homicides?”
V.P. BIDEN: Because there are so many out there, and police don’t want more out there, because they’re being outgunned. That’s the reason why.
F&S: According to the statistics, more handguns are used in crimes.
V.P. BIDEN: Well, by the way, that’s true. That’s absolutely true. That’s why we want to limit the clips, the size of the magazine on handguns.
Click to expand...

Less than 1% of criminal homicides....

So Mr. Biden says we have to ban Assault weapons because it may have saved at least 1 life.

Then why don't we ban all guns? It may save two lifes....what kind of animal wouldn't want to save that second life?

[quote name='kill3r7']It comes down to an issue of rights. If you have a "right" you don't want it to be curtailed in any way, shape or form. We as free responsible individuals should be able to police ourselves to prevent the need for government intervention. Unfortunately, based on the events of the last 30 some odd years we have shown over and over again to be incapable of being responsible gun owners. If you fail to police yourself then the government will gladly do it for you.

So gun owners have no one to blame but themselves. That said this issue will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS.[/QUOTE]

You have got to be kidding me....two in a row.

This is a prime example of someone who has tunnel vision.

Could any of us imagine if we allowed our government to decide that "we failed to police ourselves, so they will gladly do it for us" aka guilty by association?

my god,

Smoking
Drinking
Driving
Internet (Piracy)
Prescriptions
Theft
Rope
Knives
Swimming
Eating
Children

I mean we could have our very own KGB! It would be great, and we would all be better off!
 
That's pretty much how I feel, often times gun owners are their own worst enemy. Besides the inappropriate use of firearms, there is also a history of refusal to look at things in a rational way. The arguments always come down to rights, when we should be talking about necessity.
 
[quote name='Knoell']
You have got to be kidding me....two in a row.

This is a prime example of someone who has tunnel vision.

Could any of us imagine if we allowed our government to decide that "we failed to police ourselves, so they will gladly do it for us" aka guilty by association?

my god,

Smoking
Drinking
Driving
Internet (Piracy)
Prescriptions
Theft
Rope
Knives
Swimming
Eating
Children

I mean we could have our very own KGB! It would be great, and we would all be better off![/QUOTE]

What the fuck are you talking about? The government already regulates many of the things you stated such as smoking, drinking, prescriptions etc. Also, the only constitutionally protected right is children which the government has already dabbled in.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's pretty much how I feel, often times gun owners are their own worst enemy. Besides the inappropriate use of firearms, there is also a history of refusal to look at things in a rational way. The arguments always come down to rights, when we should be talking about necessity.[/QUOTE]

Congress can pass whatever laws it wants but at the end of the day they need to be constitutional. Thus, it always comes back to rights.
 
Yeah but it also limits discussion as well. The constitution can and has been amended, interpretations change, but what doesn't change about the firearm debate is that all anyone cares about is the rights issue, not if they're all necessary. I mean the 2nd amendment doesn't specify what kind of guns you're allowed to have, if you have any kind of firearm, that basically satisfies the language. I just don't personally see the need for anyone to have the right to assault weapons. Most of these folks would be perfectly fine with us being able to go out and buy a fully automatic assault rifle, basically arming civilians with military weapons.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah but it also limits discussion as well. The constitution can and has been amended, interpretations change, but what doesn't change about the firearm debate is that all anyone cares about is the rights issue, not if they're all necessary. I mean the 2nd amendment doesn't specify what kind of guns you're allowed to have, if you have any kind of firearm, that basically satisfies the language. I just don't personally see the need for anyone to have the right to assault weapons. Most of these folks would be perfectly fine with us being able to go out and buy a fully automatic assault rifle, basically arming civilians with military weapons.[/QUOTE]

It is true that the constitution can and has been amended (a pretty long and difficult process). It is also true that the way the court interprets the constitution changes based on the composition of the court. However, one thing that never changes is that SCOTUS rarely goes against one of its prior decisions. They always try to differentiate their ruling from prior precedent to avoid doing this.

I have no problem with folks owning and carrying whatever gun they want, as long as they do so responsibly. However, when their right to bear arms impinges on my freedoms I see no reason why the government shouldn't step in and regulate it.
 
That's the catch though, it's already been shown people can't responsibly handle them. If you know people are going to use them irresponsibly, the least you can do is limit what they have access to. Most gun owners seem to feel like responsibility has nothing to do with it, it's their right regardless of whether or not they're responsible with them, and while that may be true on paper, that's a really stupid way of thinking.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's the catch though, it's already been shown people can't responsibly handle them. If you know people are going to use them irresponsibly, the least you can do is limit what they have access to. Most gun owners seem to feel like responsibility has nothing to do with it, it's their right regardless of whether or not they're responsible with them, and while that may be true on paper, that's a really stupid way of thinking.[/QUOTE]

The only part of their argument that I find valid is the rights issue. I don't think anyone can definitively say which way SCOTUS will rule on this. SCOTUS can circumvent the second amendment discussion by using the commerce clause or some other "vehicle" to uphold the constitutionality of any potential law. Conversely they can deny it based on the second amendment.

That said, I would like to think that even some of the more conservative Justices realize the need for oversight and regulation of gun sales.
 
It's valid in a legal sense, but like I said, that's the only argument they want to have. Practicality, responsibility, things like that they don't want to discuss. They also don't want to have a discussion of the wording of the amendment at all, that little blurb about militias and all, that doesn't even exist apparently.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Actually they are because they are going after "the scary looking guns" instead of the ones with blood on them.

Please give me one fact that supports an assault weapons ban and that they should go after these guns.

It is absurd that between gang violence (mostly handguns) and suicides you have the VAST majority of deaths from guns, and yet you consistently ignore this and go after the wrong gun BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST SCARY LOOKING.

Sorry for the caps but the irony is so blatent I got excited. You have no statistics to back your cause, you consistently compare assault weapons to machine guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons (biden had that last one ;)), and then you go ahead and attempt to make the claim that you aren't against assault weapons because they are scary looking.

It really is laughable. Really.[/QUOTE]
Straw-Man%20animation.gif
 
Think I said this before, but they really should think about what they're saying when using the argument Knoell has there. They're basically saying "You should really be looking to ban hand guns instead, because they're used more". Then if that was acutally proposed, the same people who made that statement would blow a gasket. It makes no sense. You want to ban the weapons that are actually used in most crimes, or just talk about it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Clak thinks that race issues are a worth making throwaway comments about in mocking posts, that's telling.[/QUOTE]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa....
 
[quote name='Clak']Think I said this before, but they really should think about what they're saying when using the argument Knoell has there. They're basically saying "You should really be looking to ban hand guns instead, because they're used more". Then if that was acutally proposed, the same people who made that statement would blow a gasket. It makes no sense. You want to ban the weapons that are actually used in most crimes, or just talk about it?[/QUOTE]

It is pointing out that your cause against assault weapons is pointless as they are not the problem. You guys seem to ignore this quite a bit. "We don't need them" is the only argument you seem to push about them. I haven't seen any form of solid argument why you need to ban them.

It doesn't come down to the "right" to have them, that is solely your guys bottom line of if Congress can ban them, not if they should ban them.

Bingo though, you hit it on the head, when people realize the death toll is still 10K because Congress is playing "ban the scary weapon", then they will either say "Meh, I'm ok with that, it is just handguns" or "maybe we should go after those handguns now, since they are definately the problem."

Handguns are the problem, but along with that is that gang violence and suicides account for the majority of deaths from handguns. You don't stop either of those things by attempting to take away handguns from the only people who will turn them in.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']What the fuck are you talking about? The government already regulates many of the things you stated such as smoking, drinking, prescriptions etc. Also, the only constitutionally protected right is children which the government has already dabbled in.[/QUOTE]

More people die from cigarettes, alcohol, eating.

We have shown we are not capable of policing ourselves on these things (let alone the others), so the Government should step in for our own good. Why do we need cigarettes? Why do we need alcohol? Why shouldn't the government ration a healthy diet to us? Especially since these aren't constitutional rights ;)
 
[quote name='Knoell']More people die from cigarettes, alcohol, eating.

We have shown we are not capable of policing ourselves on these things (let alone the others), so the Government should step in for our own good. Why do we need cigarettes? Why do we need alcohol? Why shouldn't the government ration a healthy diet to us? Especially since these aren't constitutional rights ;)[/QUOTE]

$$$$. Lobbying and less of a public outcry.

As previously stated above, the government already regulates all of these industries, quite heavily I might add. Most folks are asking that the same level of oversight and control should apply to guns.

P.S. I'll avoid any discussion of outright prohibition or that most the things you listed above only harm the individual since that leads us nowhere and it has been asked and answered a million times in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top