PDA

View Full Version : The sheer stupidity of gun control bugs me


Scarecrow Repair
04-20-2007, 7:06 PM
Forget the second amendment, right to keep and bear arms, self-defense, sport, hunting, all that. What really bugs me about trying to ban guns or severely limit them is that the lesson of all previous bans is ignored.

Prohibition didn't work; individuals brewed it in their bathtubs and organized crime got a great start from large scale production and corruption.

The War on Some Drugs doesn't work; meth labs spring up all over, and the latest nonsense is restricting sales of that over the counter cold medecine (headache? don't know, don't care, doesn't matter).

What makes them think guns are so hard to make that criminals won't get hold of them? The blindness of the banners to history really annoys me.

In the case of alcohol and some drugs, the side effects are sort of harmless, at least compared to guns. It throws a lot of people in jail for no particular reason, increases corruption, creates full employment for prison guards and their corrupt union, and puts government power behind a preachy morality that most people don't subscribe to.

But in the case of guns, the problem is that only criminals end up with them. No one, as far as I know, ever held up a bank by threatening to get drunk or high, although many drunks and stoners have done stupid things. But restricting guns to the criminal class does make things worse for everybody else. Why not just hand every criminal a gun and get it over with?

It really irks me.

ravenbkp
04-21-2007, 6:55 PM
No criminals and the number one murderers in the world you own government. The folks who advocate gun control are so dim or fanatical they cannot remember what Pol Pot Hitler Stalin and Mao had in common..........DUH Gun Control !@#$%&^**%^$@

hoffmang
04-22-2007, 12:27 AM
Forget the list of dictators.

People who don't think governments can't be oppressive forget what the Klan did to Southern blacks with assistance or approval of government in the 1960's.

Luckily some of those black men had M1s and M1 Carbines...

-Gene

CalNRA
04-22-2007, 12:32 AM
Forget the list of dictators.

People who don't think governments can't be oppressive forget what the Klan did to Southern blacks with assistance or approval of government in the 1960's.

Luckily some of those black men had M1s and M1 Carbines...

-Gene


couldn't agree more, Just ask Condi, who grew up in that era in that region. Oh wait, she's a Republican so her words must not be true.:rolleyes:

SemiAutoSam
04-22-2007, 9:05 AM
Your going to love this one then.


http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/03/25/ed.col.dennis.0325.p1.php?section=opinion


Forget the second amendment, right to keep and bear arms, self-defense, sport, hunting, all that. What really bugs me about trying to ban guns or severely limit them is that the lesson of all previous bans is ignored.

Prohibition didn't work; individuals brewed it in their bathtubs and organized crime got a great start from large scale production and corruption.

The War on Some Drugs doesn't work; meth labs spring up all over, and the latest nonsense is restricting sales of that over the counter cold medecine (headache? don't know, don't care, doesn't matter).

What makes them think guns are so hard to make that criminals won't get hold of them? The blindness of the banners to history really annoys me.

In the case of alcohol and some drugs, the side effects are sort of harmless, at least compared to guns. It throws a lot of people in jail for no particular reason, increases corruption, creates full employment for prison guards and their corrupt union, and puts government power behind a preachy morality that most people don't subscribe to.

But in the case of guns, the problem is that only criminals end up with them. No one, as far as I know, ever held up a bank by threatening to get drunk or high, although many drunks and stoners have done stupid things. But restricting guns to the criminal class does make things worse for everybody else. Why not just hand every criminal a gun and get it over with?

It really irks me.

ETD1010
04-22-2007, 11:40 AM
Your going to love this one then.


http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/03/25/ed.col.dennis.0325.p1.php?section=opinion

ugh.. I couldn't even get through the third paragraph.... makes me sick to my stomach that people can twist words like that and still have a conscience. I'm gonna go throw things around now in frustration.

ravenbkp
04-23-2007, 11:31 AM
The only thing worse than a liar is one who lies to themselves that is what the author of that garbage is doing. The only word comes to mind is FILTH.

alex00
04-23-2007, 1:39 PM
Having established its reason for being, the Second Amendment stipulates "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why not say "persons" or "a person,"

Um, because people is plural for person...

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is guaranteed. A "person" cannot assemble - only collectively, among people, does the right of assembly have meaning. But as we know from the prefatory first clause of the Second Amendment, the point here is to protect "the people" who collectively constitute the state.


He contradicts himself here. Bending the argument to fit his views.

The idea that individuals would be empowered in the Constitution to mobilize without regulation in the face of some menace from the state itself is preposterous. Why would the Constitution arrange for armed rebellion against itself?

Perhaps it was because armed rebellion is how we broke free from England?

Wash your feet dirty hippy.