pour les fous des armes à feu

[maxweber]

Since it comes in so handy, when desperately trying to shout down liberals, the argument from analogy has been officially declared to be a fallacy no more.

With the newly-found freedom to ground truth in patriotism, gut instinct, and whatever just feels right, I have a question for the local troglodytes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people; am I right? Any attempt to block access to firearms is government intrusion of the worst sort, and de facto tyranny. So! how 'bout: nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people? That's true, too, ain't it? So why don't we lay off Iran, and just get on with the business of the nation--which, as Calvin Coolidge so rightly pointed out, is business.

MW

 

[foxwilly]

Yes, people do kill people. But the people who kill people will have a harder time being as effective and as efficient as they are without guns and WMD's
Taking away their toys isn't going to stop them entirely, but it will cut back on their postcount.

 

[papasmerf]

Since it comes in so handy, when desperately trying to shout down liberals, the argument from analogy has been officially declared to be a fallacy no more.

With the newly-found freedom to ground truth in patriotism, gut instinct, and whatever just feels right, I have a question for the local troglodytes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people; am I right? Any attempt to block access to firearms is government intrusion of the worst sort, and de facto tyranny. So! how 'bout: nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people? That's true, too, ain't it? So why don't we lay off Iran, and just get on with the business of the nation--which, as Calvin Coolidge so rightly pointed out, is business.

MW

with that kinda logic you would have convicted child molesters teaching grammer school. After all by your logic it is their business if they molest.

 

[maxweber]

from my cold, dead fingers (and heart)

Yes, people do kill people. But the people who kill people will have a harder time being as effective and as efficient as they are without guns and WMD's Taking away their toys isn't going to stop them entirely, but it will cut back on their postcount.

But the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, ain't it? It guarantees a free citizenry the right to as much firepower as they want and can afford. "Cutting back on the post count" isn't a right; bearing arms is. So why shouldn't that include nuclear weapons? Since the NRA geniuses have carefully parsed the "militia" element of the second amendment out of relevance and existence, we should be free to arm ourselves as we choose..

MW

 

[foxwilly]

Screw the Second Amendment!. Screw the NRA!

I'm feeling a little hungry! I'm going out for a burger!
You guys can finish this useless conversation!

 

[papasmerf]

I don't get the analogy. You may want to reconsider.

Using the same logic maxi is.

 

[maxweber]

stealth

I don't get the analogy. You may want to reconsider.

Don't reel him in just yet. Let him keep making ever bolder & more reckless complaints against my (calculatedly turnip-witted) analogy. When he's finally committed far enough, we'll spring the need for logic & the rule of law on him. Details at eleven! Next on Oprah!

MW

 

[maxweber]

no analogy here!

Screw the Second Amendment!. Screw the NRA!

Wellsir--that sure works for me!

MW

 

[oldjones]

with that kinda logic you would have convicted child molesters teaching grammer school. After all by your logic it is their business if they molest.

Okay, point taken. I bite: No one teaches grammar school until their record has been inspected and declared free of suspicious incidents. Pretty much the case this side of the Niagara River for anyone in professional contact w/ kids. We all feel our loved ones are safer from innappropriate touching

What possible rational (i did not say legal) reason can there be for not applying the same standard to anyone seeking to own a killing weapon? By current American practice—though it does vary from state to state—it seems it is their business if they kill people, rather than dinner. Wouldn't it be sensible to have as much protection from innappropriate killing?

What animal do you usually kill w/ handguns anyway?

Arm the deer!

 

[papasmerf]

Jones

I agree that the license system should be on a national level and that would create standards used country wide. As it sits today each state and in many case each county has the power to regulate.

 

[papasmerf]

Don

biggest problem with the gun shows is I can come to Cleveland and buy a gun.

 

[papasmerf]

Think of it as a stop-off to Cedar Point.

Be nice or you won't get that Bills ticket.

LOL

I am being nice

 

[papasmerf]

You'd better be, even after the
Browns kick your butt. No smerf
sulking permitted.

I promise you work hear me yell "IF it's Brown flush it down"

No sir I won't say that

 

[Gyaos]

So! how 'bout: nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people? That's true, too, ain't it?

Well, not really in this case. Radiation kills people.

Gyaos.

 

[maxweber]

NRA forever!

Well, not really in this case. Radiation kills people.

Gyaos.

Right! You're getting the hang of it! So a completely irresponsible policy toward nuclear weapons is a good idea, just like it is with guns!

MW

 

[papasmerf]

Right! You're getting the hang of it! So a completely irresponsible policy toward nuclear weapons is a good idea, just like it is with guns!

MW

So anytime we split the atom it is bad?

 

[frasier]

If we would have applied the same logic back in 1776, we would be still British subjects.
The right to bear arms should be left in the constitution, who knows we might have to take them up again.
I still can't figure out why we require a license to drive a car, but don't require one for owning a gun?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

The right to bear arms should be left in the constitution, who knows we might have to take them up again.

I will never understand this logic.

Just who are you going to take on with your 12 gauge shotgun and 9MM pistol?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

A platoon of US Marines in full combat gear.

I see the 2nd Amendment is similar to a municipal law regulating horse drawn carriages.

Both were necessary for their time and served their purpose. Now however, they're archaic and make no sense in today's reality.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I'm not against weapons. I am against
unskilled and untrained owners.

I'm not against weapons either. Unfortunately, solving the training issue will require regulation.

As weapons have advanced in the past 200 years, so should the laws concerning them.