Gun control debate (merged)

The FF also only believed that landowners should have the right to vote, recognized no women's rights, and had no issue with slavery. You good with all those beliefs?

Actually, several of the FF’s did have an issue with slavery. It’s in how they chose to address it, or not, that you should use as an example of their shortcomings.
 
Apples to oranges comparison. And you actually think arming more people will create less gun violence? That seems completely counter-intuitive to me.
And yet we have not seen a rise since constitutional carry came out. In fact within weeks in Indiana it was saving lives at that mall shooting.

And all of those rights are mentioned are tied to you taking away guns. You are assuming we are guilty and should be treated the same as criminals. You are denying us trials. You would be unjustly taking away guns from people with a ban. And that doesnt even cover the 10th, and probably some others.
 
The FF also only believed that landowners should have the right to vote, recognized no women's rights, and had no issue with slavery. You good with all those beliefs?
wait are you saying you are not OK with the rights we have?

Most people ITT have said if you want to go after guns you need to amend the constitution. Just like it was with those items. Everything else is an unconsitutional grab to deny people their rights.
 
I know this won't really work with your narrative, but below are the 8 safest countries in the world:
  • Iceland
  • Denmark
  • New Zealand
  • Norway
  • Austria
  • Slovenia
  • Japan
  • Qatar

Is one of those the country with the hot coke head Prime Minister? If not I lost interest.
 
No one (at least not me) is asking you to give up what you already have or your right to purchase and own a firearm.
I'm just trying to keep nukes and anti-aircraft weaponry out of the hands of the people who would use them for mass destruction.
THat's why they hide that pretty 'lil red button from Mindless Joe.
 
Its regulated and controlled by the people who have the nukes. And it makes sure those with the nukes keep them, and no one else gets them to threaten those with nukes.

And so far, it's only been our rational and reasonable country that has nuked someone else, and it was someone without nukes or even the threat of nukes that got hit, while the extremists are 0'fer. You can understand why countries not armed with nukes are leery of those who are armed with nukes.

That same nation that has nuked someone else is also the ones telling us to disarm from our guns. The same nation with a very long and active list of maltreating, to put it lightly, groups they have disarmed.


Geronimo!
 
No one (at least not me) is asking you to give up what you already have or your right to purchase and own a firearm.
I'm just trying to keep nukes and anti-aircraft weaponry out of the hands of the people who would use them for mass destruction.
Well, the price point probably does that on its own. Actually, a fair number of people own firearms that at one time have been classed as or used as anti-aircraft weapons (ex: .50 BMG M-2, the mighty Ma Deuce) and, as can be expected, they have not been used for any nefarious reasons.
 
Those rational and reasonable North Koreans say "Hi!"
They're really only a threat to themselves. The only reason they haven't rained missles on their own country is that they fire them from the coast just to be sure they go far enough over water not to blow any housing projects up.
 
Well, the price point probably does that on its own. Actually, a fair number of people own firearms that at one time have been classed as or used as anti-aircraft weapons (ex: .50 BMG M-2, the mighty Ma Deuce) and, as can be expected, they have not been used for any nefarious reasons.
That's because they are not easily available.
 
Advertisement





Back
Top