I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.
So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save lives?
In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.
What federal restrictions are there on guns besides dealers needing a license, and background checks to weed out prohibited persons? And you think thats too many?I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.
So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.
So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.
So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
Are we proposing a gun (at least one !) for every citizen in order to cut crime.
Interesting.
According to Fox New's "governor" Huckabee, this is the way things SHOULD be...
Unlimited ownership
No regulations
Or, England does this and that and we do the opposite..
Hell I'd support MORE restrictions if it'd save lives, but empirical evidence suggests the opposite.
Isn't that what they said about restrictions on drunk driving?That's my opinion as well. I'm not really ideologically opposed to gun restrictions, as much as I just believe they generally don't work.
Isn't that what they said about restrictions on drunk driving?
Have you ever been to England?CitizensSubjects are treated like cattle, piss on that
People didn't think that drunk driving could be reduced with restrictions and penalties, but it did, significantly.I'm not sure those are comparable situations.
People didn't think that drunk driving could be reduced with restrictions and penalties, but it did, significantly.
Getting a drivers license, registering the car, taking periodical road safety tests, penalties for road violations are some similiarites that could be applied to guns. For getting caught drunk driving, a person could lose their drivers license, pay hefty fines, go to jail, get a police record, forced to go AA and even sued if they injure or kill someone. All that has helped to reduce drinking and driving. A campaign emphasing gun safety and taking the glamor out owning guns would go along way to hindering the gun culture that seems to permeating society.
Well, by taking away a drivers license had the effect of restricting cars. And breath analyzers if you got pulled over had the effect of restricting the number of drinks one might have before driving.ya mean they didn't restrict cars or alcohol, but instead imposed stiffer fines for bad behavior... and it worked?
imagine that.
A campaign emphasing gun safety and taking the glamor out owning guns would go along way to hindering the gun culture that seems to permeating society.
And therin lies the issue. Both parties have stuck to a set of talking points for so long that despite the presence of data that opposes their points, they stick to them in some sort of demented show of faith to what they think their constituents want. The ones that come to mind first are gay marriage for the GOP and tighter gun laws for Dems.Hell I'd support MORE restrictions if it'd save lives, but empirical evidence suggests the opposite.
And therin lies the issue. Both parties have stuck to a set of talking points for so long that despite the presence of data that opposes their points, they stick to them in some sort of demented show of faith to what they think their constituents want. The ones that come to mind first are gay marriage for the GOP and tighter gun laws for Dems.
If all of you guys weren't atheists I'd probably join you:2razz:Fortunately, libertarians don't have constituents. I'm for common sense, personal freedom, and results. Therefore, it's easy to see which side of the gun aisle I choose.
If all of you guys weren't atheists I'd probably join you:2razz:
I agree it's not a requirement. It's a perception. I don't want to be perceived as an atheist nor would I want to vote for a candidate that was one. Also, abortion is a little sketchy with some libertarians IMO. That's just me though.Not a requirement. I'm Christian/spiritual, but I'm definitely not religious. I've openly said that religion is the cause for most of the world's wars throughout history.
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?