guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
The REAL man doesnt cope with his paranoia of inantimate objects (guns) by expecting a nanny- state government to deny the right to keep and bear arms to its people so that he may feel safer sitting in his gated community.
The REAL man has respect for the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens. The SCARED man relies upon his nanny- state to make him feel safe.
Peace!
Last edited:
will you please end your pissing match with TOS and get back to thoughtful and thought provoking replies? Thank you.
Why don't you ask your buddy also?
You really do have to be awfully slow to have to ask.
Afraid of getting thrown off the posse?
I'll give you 48 hours to figure it out.
Don't want to offend the boss?
Hmmmm. You might need 72 hours.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
The border states are going to be even more dangerous now.
I bet this guy didn't need an ID to buy one of these....
How To Turn Your Kitty Into A Machine Gun - YouTube
I bet this guy didn't need an ID to buy one of these....
How To Turn Your Kitty Into A Machine Gun - YouTube
wkmac
Well-Known Member
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Let's see how many people figure out where you were going with this.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Far more people die each year from drunken driving accidents than from the criminal use of firearms.
If I sell a used car to a private party... should it be MY responsibility to do perform a background check on that person to verify that they dont have a suspended license? Should it be MY responsibility to determine what degree of alcoholism, if any, that they suffer from, and from that then deduce the likelihood that they will take a life with the car that I have sold them?
Responsibilty for obeying a given law should rest with the individual, not with the party that sells that individual a legal product.
If I sell a used car to a private party... should it be MY responsibility to do perform a background check on that person to verify that they dont have a suspended license? Should it be MY responsibility to determine what degree of alcoholism, if any, that they suffer from, and from that then deduce the likelihood that they will take a life with the car that I have sold them?
Responsibilty for obeying a given law should rest with the individual, not with the party that sells that individual a legal product.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
We'll find out just how many people really are opposed to innocent people being killed and then again, we'll also find out how many so-called pro-lifers who oppose the murder of innocents really are hypocrites when you take the logic all the way.
Sober,
To your point in #2542 of gun deaths in relation to other causes, a couple of years ago, (sorry I can't remember or post link which I typically do to support a claim) I read a study showing that all gun related deaths were in decline. And regardless of one's belief on guns this is a good thing.
But I want to throw out something else to think of. When a criminal commits a criminal act where a gun is just present (not even used) public attitude is that said criminal should be banned for life from access to any and all firearms. Yet, a drunk in a bar can knife someone in a bar fight and I've yet to hear anyone state that in the interest of public safety, said drunk shall be banned for life from having, possessing or using a knife at any time (routine random police searches of kitchen for knives would be in order) and should said drunk be found to have done so, it's back to jail. What about the husband who beats the wife, or the wife who beats the husband, with a ball bat? Are they banned from having or owning a baseball bat? Are their pictures posted at baseball parks across the land to keep them out? Must everyone present ID to enter the ballpark to make sure no one on the "banned from ball bats" list is let into the park? Why shouldn't we check ID at retail outlets that sell kitchen ware or what about the tool department at Lowe's or Home Depot? Why at some point do we let those convicted of vehicular homicide back behind the wheel of a car?
Why are guns singled out for such draconian measures yet other material objects capable of inflicting harm or death are not treated in the same manner?
If statists (regardless of the right/left fiction) who want such draconian protectionism from gov't were consistent, that would be the world we lived in but then they'd be inconvenienced and thus the hypocrisy of their righteous claims!
moreluck
golden ticket member
ewwww, big mystery.....no one but the finest minds will be able to figure this one out......take it, Klein!!
brett636
Well-Known Member
I don't see why it would matter. When the principle of the argument is non existent than there is no reason to dig deeper into its meaning.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Ignorance. Fear. Predjudice. A knee- jerk desire for warm-and-fuzzy "feel good" solutions instead of thoughtful, nuanced and rational decision- making. It is a natural human instinct to want to "do something" in the aftermath of a tragedy, and as a result many of our gun laws are little more than PR stunts for the politicians who passed them.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Agreed, but why in the face of declining gun-related deaths based on statistics are any lawmakers so fixed on making new law when said statistics point to existing law already working? Why has pro-gun groups not better publicized these facts which IMO favor their position?
Those questions are not to you specifically Sober but broader questions (if not a bit rhetorical) to the conditions themselves. With all the problems we have elsewhere, why would any thinking person regardless of belief be concerned about guns when the violence from them are declining and ownership is also declining as less and less of new generations of people are becoming gun owners in the first place?
Either way, why is the issue even an issue to begin with?
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Similar threads
