Gun control is withering on the vine.

Post Reply New Topic

Not divinely inspired? Good Heavens! Is the Bill of Rights a fraud?

Still, whether a fraud or not, we Americans deeply cherish the Second Amendment, and would not seek to deny the Second Amendment's blessings to anyone in the world, most especially to any group of people who might fancy forming a militia.

Using guns to shoot down armed aggressors is sublimely awesome.

Where is it claimed that the constitution was? Show me where such a claim exists in the constitution or shut up with your caricaturizations and word games.

The "militias" you speak of are filled with insane people who seek not independence, but rather genocide. It is not for defense, but offense that they keep trying to obtain weapons and break the embargo which should be there to prevent armaments from reaching the bloody fingers of those lunatics which you keep attempting to associate with the term "militia".

From the apostle Glenn Beck:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articl ... 198/38853/

Are you saying that limits should be imposed on who can and can't carry a weapon, as well as on who can and can't form a militia?

Well, so much for the divinely inspired Second Amendment.

It was just a crock from the beginning.

And, by the way, the Jerusalem Post uses the term "militia" to describe Palestinian military forces.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists ... ?id=171197

The low crime rates in many European countries and their stringent gun control laws aren't necessarily connected. You could just as easily say that the relative lack of poverty in those countries compared to the United States are responsible for the low amount of firearm homicides as opposed to lack of availability of guns. I'm surprised more haven't said this, as liberals are always saying, 'poverty causes crime' and other such stuff. Either way, until someone cites some credible research that connects the two, and shows that one causes the other, people are just blowing smoke. Besides, as Dox has pointed out, the crime rates in the UK, for example were already very low before gun control restrictions were enacted.

I don't really get the logic behind the idea that restricting guns will somehow cause less people to have them and use them. If we can't get people to stop smoking pot by making it illegal, what in the world makes us think we'll stop people from using guns by banning them? Has the amount of pot smokers decreased since it was made illegal? I don't think so. So how can the same apply to banning guns?

I suppose that some liberal will proffer the argument that controlling guns in Europe really didn't hurt anything, so doing the same in the USA similarly wouldn't hurt anything.

Well, it might scare the bejesus out of frightened people who are so insecure they see rapists and murderers running around in every situation. Never having the slightest use for a gun I would not be bothered bit.

Cops and criminals have guns why can't i have a gun? I've lived in the city all my life and in some pretty sketchy neighborhoods, I can't blame someone for wanting protection for themselves and their families. Most people are lucky and will never have to use a gun for protection but it provides peace of mind. Gun crimes and crime in general has way more to do with poverty than it does the access to guns.

Anyone who considers getting into a face off with a gun is a guarantee of security is off his rocker.

Don't feed the trolls.

It's not a guarantee and it should not be marketed as such. What carrying a gun does do is tip the odds more in your favor if you do find yourself confronted by a violent criminal. It's kind of like carrying a little insurance policy: you hope you never need it but boy are you glad to have it if you do!

As opposed the alternative?

You know, I don't hear about to many gun battles around here? The whole wild west fantasy has been thoroughly debunked.

Reaching for a gun when someone is expecting resistance or has the drop on you is pretty much guaranteed suicide.

This latest execution in Utah was awesome, wasn't it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759499/ns ... nd_courts/

I was getting tired of the same old lethal injection. Lethal injection is so gay. Heck, you might as well tickle a condemned man to death with a feather duster.

Now, firing squad, that's awesome!

Naah! Much more fun if he sits on a few sticks of dynamite and a few sadists can pay to take pot shots at the dynamite. Much more blood and flying guts.

If the shots are well aimed, the pain, if any, is very short lived. There is evidence that lethal injection can be quite painful and take a relatively long time.

The physical shock/impact of several 30 cal. bullets hitting withing milliseconds should render the victim unconscious very quickly. Death follows quickly also.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 19 Jun 2010, 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.