Right, whereas the "They're coming to take your guns, which is the only way you can keep yourselves safe from the influx of immigrants, the gangs, the religious extremists and the Media" argument is calm and phlegmatic side of the debate.
So what is it?No, I'm not talking about law enforcement. I'm talking about the next step for those pursuing safety at all costs.
You have no idea what my perspective is, nor any idea of the legal steps to carry out what you propose, nor the jurisprudence going back decades...
Mount your legal case against the 2nd Amendment and show us how we're going to get to abolish the 2nd Amendment and ban all gun ownership.
The irony is pretty great in this post
Prohibition came with Bible verses and was mostly supported in rural areas.
You know, same people that think the government's coming for their guns.
The biggest nanny state, false sense of security theaters enacted in recent times come from Republican administrations under the guise of the war on terror... you were very likely on board with them before you were against them. (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA wiretap programs, etc etc etc).
For as much as some people here want to demonize 'the radical left', the actual steps came straight from the right (in complicity with the Dems, to be sure).
I voted for Nader. I've been anti-establishment for quite some time with little to no faith in either party. Trump gave me hope.
This is about the most pathetic thing I've ever read.
Muslim's are a massive unnecessary threat to your country. I don't speak about Mexicans as a major danger but there are numerous reason to keep illegals out of the country.like you gots don’t pull that with immigration. “Keep Muslims and Mexicans out
to keep our children safe
Ban abortions to protect
So you are comparing something equals 100% death to an item that could equal death. Also taking a short term outlook of your gun deaths.
How's that working out for you? (no sarcasm, honest question)
We will see at the mid-terms. I'm predicting a sea of crimson red. One simply needs to latch on to Trump to win there.
What does this have to do with being anti-establishment?
You went from voting for a pro-choice, pro-gun-control environmentalist who advocates for single-payer health insurance to cheerleading against all of those things (and for total establishment moves like massive tax cuts for the wealthy) while wearing a MAGA hat and rooting for Republican Congressional victories.
It's one thing to vote for Trump as a vote against the establishment, I get that, but you've basically reversed every conviction you once had because Trump is the guy you root for now? Do you have any real convictions?
I don't think you actually hate the establishment, I think you just hate life and want to watch the world burn. What a ing loser.
Gun ownership gives people a false sense of security. Statistically more likely to accidentally injure yourself or a family member than be used in self defense
32 deaths are 32 deaths. It's not about gun vs knife, it's about death toll. If you think people being killed by a knife is somehow more acceptable than people killed by a gun, that need some explanation. Who said the NY killings were stray bullets hitting kids?
Police protection gives people a false sense of security since you're more likely to be arrested and jailed or killed by an assailant than having a cop come to your rescue in time to save you.
Carrying a gun isn't about having a sense of security. It's about having the ability to respond under crisis situation if one ever developed. You might still not respond, you might not respond properly, but you have the ability to do so.
It's always the non-gun crowd who thinks having a gun is to invoke a feeling.
Is the Sandy Hook massacre possible if Adam Lanza is only armed with a knife? Yes or no?
Deflection. 32 deaths by knife vs 32 deaths by gun. That's the issue.
You know the old saying - better to have a gun and not need one than to need a gun and not have one. If you're comfortable protecting yourself or your loved ones with nothing more than your fists then that is your prerogative. You can remind yourself you were on the right side of the stats on the way to the hospital. That's all the good it will do you.
No it isn’t. Stop trying to force your flawed argument.
Is Sandy Hook possible if Adam Lanza has a knife? Yes or no.
All of this because I suggested that London might be better off with their gangs armed with knives than guns. I think the stray bullet thing is pretty objectively a winning argument in favor of knives being preferable. But it's hardly worth pages and pages of discussion, so... I take it you believe it's preferable to loosen gun restrictions in London so those gangs will shoot each other instead of stabbing each other? What's your opinion on London's stabbing epidemic?
About that crime rate, did you ever figure out what has happened to the crime rate in London since handguns were restricted? Or are you going to continue to ignore the question like a little ?
I own a gun tbh. Didn’t spend money on one, my dad handed it down. Though will probably get rid of it when my family size grows beyond 2It's always the non-gun crowd who thinks having a gun is to invoke a feeling.
Start a thread and ask that question if you want to create a red herring.
In London, the homicide rate has increased as the British capital experiences a rise in knife-related crime — responsible for 31 deaths this year — while New York City's murder rate has steadily dropped for almost three decades. Of the 54 murders in New York City this year, 32 people died by a firearm.
Death is death. I didn't see Adam Lanza's name in there anywhere. No one said knives are better killing tools than guns. You can continue to make the obvious emotional plea for Sandy Hook but it's a deflection.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote