Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 37. (Read 36627 times)

Sort of like your primary purpose is to exhaust CO2.

Actually, the primary purpose of almost all guns is to stop crime without even having to be fired, as that is what all government statistics and non-debunked/retracted peer-reviewed research show happens most of the time. If FA wasn't a treacherous sociopath who will do and say anything to render innocents defenseless in order to enable our victimization with impunity, he'd admit that.

Sad. Sort of like an internal combustion engine's purpose is to exhaust fuel which it burns.

Desperate, are we?

A gun's primary purpose is to fire a lead slug down-range. Guns don't have political agendas.

How laughable. People do care that a gun's primary purpose is to kill people. For crying out loud. It boggles my mind that people try to base their whole support of guns on premises like this.

Also, people can be forced to abandon lifestyles that are unhealthy for the rest of us.

It's not a matter of caring, it's a matter of ethics. If you were trying to make your nation thrive, would you allow your citizens machines dedicated to killing?

But no one CARES if a gun's primary purpose is to kill people. Don't you understand that? You can't just control other people and force them to abandon a lifestyle you disagree with because you think they are savages in need of your political enlightenment.

You again. Pointless logic, which is par for the course for you. How many times does one have to say it? Cars have a purpose other than to take aim at someone and threaten and kill. It boggles me no end that these meme repeaters think they're being clever.

"The vast majority of defensive gun uses don't even involve firing...they just threaten and the guy runs away....People do what you say when you threaten them with a deadly weapon."

What I said earlier.

But look here....GET REAL! You know, we all know, only Law Enforcement Officers are trained and capable of handling dangerous, deadly firearms.  Just watch this DEA agent instruct a class of young children! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

LOL...Yeah, you've now laughed at someone shooting themself...

You are more likely to die by a car accident if you own and drive a car.  Using your logic, we should therefore ban cars.

Oh, and going outside is dangerous too.  You could fall and break your neck!  Better ban outside!!

Sitting still is bad for you too.  Better ban chairs.

Life is a calculated risk.  Get over it.

M

No, just obey gun (and all other anti-self defense, pro-criminal utopia) laws and kiss your ass goodbye.

When a crime is occurring, ought one resist?  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptCtNW5yI7c

There is crime which is not deadly. And there is crime which is deadly. What's his face, and his adulating choir advocate more of the latter. Please, reserve your red letters and grammar checks for actual grammatical errors. But if that's the only argument that you have, then we have a definitive failure in rebuttal, do we not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

LANGUAGE FAIL!!

Not you, the language. Did you mean

You advocate deadlier crime?

or

You advocate higher frequency of deadly crime?

And thus, we gather, you advocate more deadly crime. Here's some advice: an essay, couched in fancy grammar, does not necessarily make an argument compelling except to your own choir. Within all the balderdash though, we see some truth:

Good sir, I do believe I am in love. Please pray tell, where have you learned to speak so eloquently?

This was forewarned by Eisenhower:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

The science fiction of Daniel Suarez (Daemon, Freedom, Kill Decision) guesses at some of the future dystopian enventualities of our current course of corporate mega control of politicians and society.  I don't agree with his conclusions, but find his work highly imaginative and entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUEGzjnGsiA

The effort to produce the argument from first principles is appreciated, for me personally living in the USA, my position is quite different.  It is more like "I have this right, the 2nd amendment, now how do we best live and conduct ourself with that reality".  But yes, some would take it away, and the origin of those arguments are not in the loudest voices heard.

This is because the very nature of "propaganda" is to be "propagated", and that is only really done by those who do not know it's nature, but do the job because it is popular or trendy, or they are paid in one fashion or another for so doing.

It is unfortunate that some of the most important lessons of history cannot be so easily imparted and must be re learned the hard way over and over.   Hopefully some part of this, at the least the tragic consequences of economic failure of nations overspending and printing money without end, can be mitigated by, as in the past, conversion to substitute currencies, but with Bitcoin, at an exponentially more rapid pace, and the net human suffering be according less.

Forgive me for truncating in this reply some of your work.  I'm interested in reading more, please either post references or if more appropriate send me a link to such.

Well done.

+1.

Well spoken sir.

M

AR=ArmaLite Rifle
AK=Avtomat Kalashnikova