Ban on *** Ownership?
- Thread starter Will E Worm
- Start date
some people can't understand the reason of the second amendment until they face a dangerous situation.
Facetious
Moderated
You couldn't have put it more succinctly . . . and accurately !
Short, Sweet and free of rhetorical / semantical b/s !
I like that :hatsoff:
will e i agree this sucks i am a *** owner
yes the 408 because it is fun to shoot with over 2200m with having a 3inch group.
:yesyes:
These people still don't get it. It's not about guns. It's not, about, guns. :crash: I go to my aunts every once in a while and her town probably has a *** for every person. There are trucks full of hunters with shotguns handy driving down her dirt road every hunting season. There has never been a homicide in probably 300 years - maybe ever. But everybody has a ***. When will you anti-*** proponents ever try to understand this? Do you go out of your way to ignore this fact? :dunno:
Because your story proves nothing and there is no useful fact to be found? I have made a study, and come to the conclusion that 100% of the population are convicted criminals. Of course, my sample consisted of a handful of people from the local prison, but my poorly performed study of a limited and extremely selective sample is surely enough to draw conclusions about the entire population, right? A fairly common parody on this is the one that directly links breathing to death (i.e. breathing causes you to die because everyone who has died has also breathed).
Not that I actually need to discredit your statistical analysis, it's easy enough to show that the conclusion is at worst wrong and at best incomplete; the rate of violent crime in a country does not correlate to the *** density (for example Canada - US, as I mentioned above). That's a direct contradiction of your conclusion, and probably from a study performed far better than yours.
Do you go out of your way to ignore proper statistical analysis?
A study? What study? All people are convicted criminals? That's rich. Like some old lady that went 1 mph over the speed limit? Where do you live (inner-city, suburb, rural area)?
Facetious
Moderated
Cav, I think that they'd rather we not intercept the neo - maoists currently en route (albeit surreptitiously). 
I refuse to become drawn to, nor do I buy their tedious intellectual squabble.
Besides, I'm not negotiable and will not acquiesce !
What the he!!, we have something in common.
I refuse to become drawn to, nor do I buy their tedious intellectual squabble.
Besides, I'm not negotiable and will not acquiesce !
What the he!!, we have something in common.
Cav, I think that they'd rather we not intercept the neo - maoists currently en route (albeit surreptitiously).
.
Mao was a very good man indeed.
How many millions died because of his Marxist ideology...:dunno:
So the safety of your own citizen is meaningless to you. How thankful you are for a brit who got his american citizenship :scream:
One day or another someone will remember you that you are first a not born and bread american citizens and that you can't dictate your laws on a soil where you are not born and haven't lived since your *********. The problems lies in people with leftist beliefs who are the source of problem during REAGAN there was not much so blah blah and winning about guns but when Bill Clinton, the Blowjobber and the liar under oath came in power he wanted to ban guns hoping it would reduce crime but it didn't. So you want the US to be like Sweden was before, to pay other people healthcare costs with your money? Keep dreaming None wants social liberalism in the US, if you think about that form of politics then you have Canada. Forgetting guns? I would rather forget left wingers and hippies and any kind of people related to them who are against them than forgetting my guns, my safety and the safety of my own goods paid with my hard earned money first.
People are too conservative to see their guns removed, unless they are a bunch of silly hippies and some greedy communists who have no sense of responsibility and duty, they will accept to see their guns removed.
No, it wasn't directed towards you, Fox. A straw man argument is (another), fairly common unfortunately, fallacy. Sometimes you can even use it without realizing it. The idea is that you present the opposing view in an erroneous or exaggerated way which makes it easy to refute. Georges just gave a very fine example (and there's a couple of other good examples of what you shouldn't do in there as well), connecting your comment about how the issue of *** control is irrelevant to a supposed position that says that safety of the citizens is irrelevant. This isn't necessarily a straw man if guns actually could be linked to public safety, but as I've said before, no such link has been proven (as far as I know anyway). Another example would be if I said "I think Obama would make a bad president", and you reply "oh, so you're a racist, are you?".
I have some mixed feelings on this issue (so I'm probably in the wrong place, I know, if I don't have a hardcore, extreme opinion one way or the other).
Some thoughts, though:
- I think a lot of self-serving interpretation has to be done by those who read the 2nd Amendment to mean that any individual ought to be able to own a ***.
- For those who say that assault weapons are already ****** (are they? I've known people who own FULLY automatic weapons, and perhaps I've even fired one myself, for rec. purposes), but support *** ownership, why doesn't it bother you (or maybe it does) that the assault weapons are ******? Does the 2nd Amendment really make distinctions between different types of arms?
- If we're guaranteed the right to weapons ("arms" is a pretty ambiguous term, no?) , why stop at guns? Why shouldn't we be able to own other weapons that make bigger bangs, such as bombs and missiles and whatever else?
- For those who like the idea of *** ownership in the context of protecting themselves from a government run amok, do you really think that your small home arsenal will really do much good in the event that any actual despotic government comes after you for whatever reason (not just to collect your guns and melt them into a frame for a welfare daycare center or something)? If you haven't noticed, people who amass arsenals that actually reach combat levels are usually "approached" by various authorities at some point.
- All that said, I DO have some sympathies for the dwindling number of good, responsible (and safe & careful) hunters out there, but I suspect that *** control policy could find a way to carve out exceptions for hunters. Likewise with collectors.
- Having read pretty widely on both sides of the issue, incl. various arguments that the more guns in a society, the safer it is, I gotta say I don't feel convinced about the pro-*** arguments. I think the U.S. probably would be better off with some serious restrictions, at the least.
- For those who worry about a despotic government, I don't think that amassing arms is the best way to prevent that or (realistically) create a chance to stop it. You'd be better off trying to take over the military and stage a coup of some sort if you think ******** is the only way in the given situation...
Some thoughts, though:
- I think a lot of self-serving interpretation has to be done by those who read the 2nd Amendment to mean that any individual ought to be able to own a ***.
- For those who say that assault weapons are already ****** (are they? I've known people who own FULLY automatic weapons, and perhaps I've even fired one myself, for rec. purposes), but support *** ownership, why doesn't it bother you (or maybe it does) that the assault weapons are ******? Does the 2nd Amendment really make distinctions between different types of arms?
- If we're guaranteed the right to weapons ("arms" is a pretty ambiguous term, no?) , why stop at guns? Why shouldn't we be able to own other weapons that make bigger bangs, such as bombs and missiles and whatever else?
- For those who like the idea of *** ownership in the context of protecting themselves from a government run amok, do you really think that your small home arsenal will really do much good in the event that any actual despotic government comes after you for whatever reason (not just to collect your guns and melt them into a frame for a welfare daycare center or something)? If you haven't noticed, people who amass arsenals that actually reach combat levels are usually "approached" by various authorities at some point.
- All that said, I DO have some sympathies for the dwindling number of good, responsible (and safe & careful) hunters out there, but I suspect that *** control policy could find a way to carve out exceptions for hunters. Likewise with collectors.
- Having read pretty widely on both sides of the issue, incl. various arguments that the more guns in a society, the safer it is, I gotta say I don't feel convinced about the pro-*** arguments. I think the U.S. probably would be better off with some serious restrictions, at the least.
- For those who worry about a despotic government, I don't think that amassing arms is the best way to prevent that or (realistically) create a chance to stop it. You'd be better off trying to take over the military and stage a coup of some sort if you think ******** is the only way in the given situation...
Similar threads
