- Joined
- Aug 6, 2019
- Messages
- 15,086
- Reaction score
- 6,810
- Location
- Bridgeport, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Because unless we criminalize taking drugs, you or a loved one may descend into this dangerous habit
So when you said that the purpose of law enforcement is to protect people, you meant to protect people from themselves?
Ummm...it's not over at all. I'm very pro-gun but I'm not divorced from reality. The gun control crowd has made lots of gains over the years and will continue to do so. The area they have been making the most gains is in public opinion. I think they will win in the end. That's the cycle of things.
You've just described the gun control crowd when you said "all of the above."Any one whos says gun control is banning is either a drunk, mentally feeble, a fool, malignantly motivated, or a combination of any or all of the above.
No, they have lost big time, particularly during the Obama administration. They will lose in the end, their loss has already started.
Yadda Yadda Yadda. We've heard it all before.Private ownership of guns needs to be banned* and the 2nd amendment repealed.
Subject to certain exemption
When seconds matter the police are minutes away.Civilized countries use their police force for protection in quite a successful way.
What limits Americans for using the police in the same way ?
Its beautiful there in the summer, I wouldn't go there in the winter.Alaska was the best State I have ever had the pleasure of visiting.
When African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians apply for gun permits, gun owners will want gun control.
I think you mean "what"
It is to protect the people and enforce the law (which really is the same thing).
Yes it is, think about it. What the enforcement of what law (OK, I guess an exception would be "blasphemy") could not be argued as protecting the people ?
You know the world will not come to an end if you admit you were wrong about something.
You've just described the gun control crowd when you said "all of the above."
When seconds matter the police are minutes away.
Enforcing the law is not the same as protecting the people, not when it involves seizing guns from innocent people.
The enforcement of laws that prohibit "victimless crime" is not protecting the people.
I think we might see a seismic shift in US politics come November.
And yet it hasn't registered no matter how many times you've heard it.To quote yourself:
"Yadda Yadda Yadda. We've heard it all before."
Anybody who isn't guilty is innocent, that's how the system in the USA works, you're innocent until proven guilty.Yes it is
Because who is to say who is "innocent"
An active shooter isn't an innocent citizen.Do you care if you're shot by an active shooter who was a convicted felon or an "innocent" citizen ?
Guns seized from criminals yes, guns seized from innocent people no.If the police seized guns, IMO, every one seized is potentially one less that can be used on me
"Blasphemy" I grant you is a victimless crime and blasphemy laws should not exist
What other laws can you think of though ?
In the direction of people wanting more gun rights, absolutely. Especially in the wake of the Coronavirus and the rioting.
And yet it hasn't registered no matter how many times you've heard it.
Anybody who isn't guilty is innocent, that's how the system in the USA works, you're innocent until proven guilty.
An active shooter isn't an innocent citizen.
Guns seized from criminals yes, guns seized from innocent people no.
Seizing guns from innocent people leaves them defenseless, that is not protecting them its the opposite of protecting them.
Prostitution
More evidence that the debate is over and progressives have lost:
Actually Trump's idea that tear gassing people in order to use a Bible as a prop in a photo opportunity, is his idea of "leadership" will do more to bring about a government favoring gun control than not.
It's got nothing to do with Trump.
People place a high value on security for themselves and their families. They see idiot looters and rioters in the news and correctly recognize how dangerous these morons really are. Imagine someone on the fence about gun control and both of us talk to him:
You: Don't worry, the police will protect you. If a looter attacks you, just call the police and wait patiently for them to arrive. You don't need a gun.
Me: You alone are responsible for your own safety the safety of your family. Arm yourself and shoot any looter that breaks into your home.
Honestly, who would be stupid enough to find your side of the argument convincing? Hell, you don't even believe that nonsense.
No, the police will tel you (assuming they're not in a homicidal mood that day) that they're just trying to keep everyone safe
Arm yourself by all means if you want, I just wouldn't recommend you do so with a gun.
Then why are the majority of Americans not in possession of a gun ?
Are they all "stupid" ?
Except they're not and they couldn't even if they wanted to.
No, a gun and some training is by far the best means of self-defense. That is indisputable.
I didn't say stupid, you did...
Honestly, who would be stupid enough to find your side of the argument convincing? Hell, you don't even believe that nonsense.
It's a matter of costs and benefits. I just looked it up and 43% of American households have at least one gun already. The longer these riots keep up the worse it is for the gun control movement. Who would have thought there would be a silver lining to idiots rioting and looting?
What do you think they're trying to do ?
I would dispute it
A gun usually gives you one option (shooting to wound is legally fraught) and can lead to hesitation, where a non-lethal means would not
A gun also makes you less safe in your home
Ahem. Post #70:
Care to retract ?
Idk, find the best donut shop?
Provide an example. Explain how the average 120lb woman can reliably stop a 200lb male attacker without a firearm.
Does that statistic include suicides?
You're mixing up two different claims. I said, "Honestly, who would be stupid enough to find your side of the argument convincing?
I didn't say stupid, you did...
I didn't claim people who don't own at least one gun are stupid, because, as I already said in post #72, whether to own a gun will be based on costs and benefits, which are different for each person. For example, I currently don't own any guns because we have young kids in the house all the time.
The misunderstanding occurred because you weren't following the argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?