How To Argue For Gun Control.

Denial implicates guilt.

 

LOL – I think the only thing I’m guilty of is replying to your shit

Poor Lug is this the best you can do – we all still notice you’ve not address the criticisms of your views yet.

 

Balbus,

My contacts in Tel Aviv have identified you as an anti-Semitic poster.

Why do you hate Jews.

They're God's chosen people, you know?

 

:banhim:

 

have we not finished arguing for gun control? i finished after i read the second amendment

 

I don't have a fear of being gang raided. In fact I have little interest in owning a machine gun. It eats up ammo. However for me it would be a fun range toy and maybe useful for a TEOTWAWKI scenario. And again, you throw this "why not you bring out a society where you're not so fearful" nonsense at me.

1. I'm not fearful.

2. Even if I was how would I go about what you said?

 

Link?

So what's your answer as to why they get involved in gangs? Either way the answer is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is whether guns are the cause of violence and if gangs and drugs are the main cause of violence then guns aren't the issue.

I'm for the decriminalizing of drugs. They should still be illegal (to an extant) but drug addicts should be rehabilitated instead if imprisoned.

It isn't. It is however the main cause of gun crimes and that's the topic at hand.

 

Chlorine is deadly if ingested. However that deadliness is needed for many things. If we try to reduce the deadliness of chlorine then it wouldn't be effective. Same with guns. Sure, it can kill innocent life if used improperly but it needs to be lethal in order for it to be an effective means of defense.

To address your second point first what I said was different from what you said. I said we need safety programs in schools. Get the children before they are old enough to have a firearm. What you're suggesting is a safety course for full grown adults and that acts as a prior restraint which is against the constitution. To address your first point no it doesn't. It does however help reduce accidental shootings by child. If we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals then we need to broaden our scopes beyond the gun debate. We harshly punish violent felons and restore gun rights to non violent ones. And you can't fix stupid. If people are going to be irresponsible then no amount of training is going to help.

60% of the deaths are suicides and the rest are drug and gang related. Fix the gang and drug problem (different subject) and gun deaths will drop dramatically.

 

Proving my point that its not the guns but the people.

And if you look before gun control was implemented you'll see that crime wasn't that high to begin with.

 

It worked before and if you're not going to instill morals that way then how else?

 

Are you implying that it would have been better to acquiesce to death than to fight for one's life?

Gun controllers attempt to rationalize their gun phobias using pseudo-logic.

Irrational fear of guns implicates mental illness: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

 

You must be referring to the Trail of Tears. Cherokees peaceably acquiesced to President Jackson's relocation scheme. President Jackson was the direct cause of hundreds on innocent Cherokee deaths.

Indians faced a Hobson's choice. Either would have been contrary to their interests. Many chose to fight back against forked tongue politicians.

The correct interpretation of history is from the viewpoint of the zeitgeist of the era in which an historical event occurred. Indians were not going to persuade a majority of pale faces regardless of what they did.

 

Why. Has it ever been proven to work? You realize the VT shooter committed the second largest shooting in America with only ten round magazines and pistols and the Orlando shooter passed a background check twice.

 

You know why.

 

Haha the old "they only had muskets back then" argument. I shall retaliate with the old "they didn't had computers back then either" response. To add, they did indeed had multi shot weapons and were in favor of them. If they wanted to exclude such weapons they would've said so.

And it still works. Your point?

However natural rights are everlasting.

Tell me what evidence you have that it'll reduce crime.

 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=florida+gun+laws&form=EDGTCT&qs=LS&cvid=893a24e05d544bcab6f1f1454736249b&pq=florida+gun+laws

 

No, I don't other than for feelzies.

 

How would registration prevented the Orlando shooting?

 

You're ignoring my statements. I'm going to ignore you if you continue in your retaliatory rant. I will also continue to revere the success of California's recent passing of Prop 64. We will take guns away from those who would use them for ill purposes. The beginning is with criminal background checks for prospective ammunition purchases. How much does ammo cost macc?

 

Registration? I thought we were talking about background checks for ammunition, and banning extended magazines. Macc, I always feel like you're trying to trick me! It's simple don't you see?