Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 4

5861 posts

Flag Post

The tool of death is irrelevant, its criminal behavior.

 
Flag Post

If you don’t want a gun, don’t get one.

The same argument could be made for rocket launchers, explosives and chemical weapons. It doesn’t work, because the actions of other people affect you.

But don’t tell me that I’m a criminal or encouraging criminal behavior by saturating my community with weapons that never leave my possession.

If guns are banned, and you keep them, you would be a criminal. And being armed does indeed encourage violence.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

The tool of death is irrelevant, its criminal behavior.

If the tool did not matter, countries who have stricter gun laws would not have a statistically lower rate of murder than the US does. But they do.

 
Flag Post

The tool of death is irrelevant, its criminal behavior.

The “tool of death” matters. Guns are far more effective killers than sponges.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by cpasley:
Originally posted by finkle:

The tool of death is irrelevant, its criminal behavior.

If the tool did not matter, countries who have stricter gun laws would not have a statistically lower rate of murder than the US does. But they do.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Your data is skewed by the fact that blacks commit several times more gun crime than whites, and in the US they represent a significantly higher proportion of the population than, say, Japan.

 
Flag Post

Please tell me where I can buy rocket launchers, explosives and chemical weapons?

 
Flag Post

You can’t, and for good reason. The same reasons other people want to restrict access to, or outright ban, the sale of guns.

 
Flag Post

Sure worked with alcohol and prohibition, and drugs in general right? People will always find a way to kill other people as well as kill themselves. You can stand there with your d!ck in your hand all you want. I like to be prepared, for all occasions, not just life or death ones. Murder’s always been illegal and it’s never stopped anyone before, with or without a gun.

 
Flag Post

It’s that kind of mentality that wants to ban french fries for the salvation of mankind. Since once again cardiovascular disease causes more deaths than anything, but lets focus on guns.

 
Flag Post

Sure worked with alcohol and prohibition, and drugs in general right?

It’s a bit easier to make alcohol or grow weed in the basement than it is to build a lethal firearm and supply your own ammunition.

People will always find a way to kill other people as well as kill themselves.

..so let’s give up? Reducing firearms will reduce firearms related deaths, which I think is a fair tradeoff.

I like to be prepared, for all occasions, not just life or death ones.

Oh lordy don’t tell me you got your own fallout shelter and everything.

Murder’s always been illegal and it’s never stopped anyone before, with or without a gun.

Right, but that doesn’t mean we have to allow more and more powerful weapons to find their way into everyones hands.

It’s that kind of mentality that wants to ban french fries for the salvation of mankind.

The day someone can use french fries to threaten someone else’s life that comparison might hold. Until then it is just more proof that gun nuts can’t comprehend complex things like analogies. If you can’t handle basic grammar I sure as hell won’t trust you with a lethal weapon.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by WarMachine2009:

Why do the libs want to take gun rights away from Americans?

’Cause they know there are many retards out there.

/thread

 
Flag Post

I’m so glad SA can reason politely and without using personal attacks, it’s really impressive

 
Flag Post

I’m glad BnBn almost has the capacity to understand that I respond to ad hominems with ad hominems so that we all understand how pointless they are and can drop them. Almost.

 
Flag Post

Sure worked with alcohol and prohibition, and drugs in general right?

Irrelevant, simply because criminals ignore the law is no reason to scrap the law. As well stop prosecuting burglary, by that logic.

Murder’s always been illegal and it’s never stopped anyone before, with or without a gun.

Guns make it easier to act on murderous impulses.

 
Flag Post

We’re you the jackass that made the ad hominem remark??? Just checkin. Hope you can sleep at night because as far a guns go, I’ve got fifteen and have marksmanship awards out the ass. You’re gonna have to trust me I guess. Haven’t been caught yet for all mah killin sprees. How’s that for grammar? And last time I checked, the left of center was trying to ban trans fat for the sake of my health, thank you very much, and blaming McDonalds and other fast food chains on the obesity epidemic. But just like you instead of focusing on laziness, or in the case of guns… criminal behavior, you turn the offender into the victim not the responsible people. Is that not an anology, or did I not properly use like or as in a previous post professor? And by the way, you’re very redundant. Lethal firearm. Duh. And the sole purpose of a firearm is not to kill. You keep missing this idea too… The sole purpose of a firearm is the precision placement of a high-velocity projectile. Where you put that projectile is up to the individual. Stop whining so much and thinking you’re better than everyone else. People have the right to defend themselves. Ok now I’m ad hominem attacking your dumba$$.

 
Flag Post

There is no way obama could ban guns, nor will he try. However, he might put in a national set of gun control laws instead of each state having a different set of gun control laws .That would make it easier and safer, while also making licenses from other states work in other states.

 
Flag Post

International treaties carry the same weight as constitutional amendments, so he could possibly ban guns through the UN without congressional approval.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

International treaties carry the same weight as constitutional amendments, so he could possibly ban guns through the UN without congressional approval.

That would not happen. He does not plan on banning guns at all, and the UN would not agree on that.

 
Flag Post

You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

 
Flag Post

Hope you can sleep at night because as far a guns go, I’ve got fifteen and have marksmanship awards out the ass.

Thinly veiled death threats sure help make the case that those of you who support gun use can be trusted. Even as a joke that was in poor taste.

But just like you instead of focusing on laziness, or in the case of guns… criminal behavior, you turn the offender into the victim not the responsible people.

No, I separate the two issues as they should be, and right now I am focusing on guns alone. They aren’t needed for daily use. I would of course allow hunting and such, but private carry isn’t really needed.

And last time I checked, the left of center was trying to ban trans fat for the sake of my health, thank you very much, and blaming McDonalds and other fast food chains on the obesity epidemic.

I am not the left of the center. Stop stereotyping all your detractors and then breaking down into long winded rants when someone does the same to you.

And the sole purpose of a firearm is not to kill.

The sole purpose of a firearm is the precision placement of a high-velocity projectile.

Which usually means “to kill.” I’m not sure why you are so worked up on avoiding the truth, or why I’m the bad guy for pointing out the obvious.

International treaties carry the same weight as constitutional amendments

Yeah…no. Government 101, c’mon.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Please explain.

 
Flag Post

I’m guessing you went to college, because you are as dumb as shit. Mindless troll.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by finkle:

<insert trolling here>

What are you talking about?

 
Flag Post

Usually the first and last time annoying anti-gun libs see a gun is when someone like Seung-Hui Cho shoots them dead.

They should have emergency loaded guns for staff to break in case of attack, just like those advanced heart attack devices we see in malls and other places.

I bet the dozens dead would have loved to have a gun at Virginia Tech that day, at least they could have fought back and possibly killed him. Instead, he shot dead dozens of hiding libs.

 
Flag Post

forget it, I wasn’t talking about you, this discussion is lost, stA thinks inanimate objects are evil