Defend your right to own a car.

So you have a problem with democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Nothing is my argument is contradicting. You either cant read or cant comprehend.

---

"It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about."

That is contradicting to your typical personality on here, defend yourself all you want, but it's the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

So you have a problem with democracy?

---

Is North Korea a democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elbow

"It's impossible for you to understand someone caring about something that you do not deem worthy of caring about."

That is contradicting to your typical personality on here, defend yourself all you want, but it's the truth.

---

Give me one example.

I wont fault you for being misunderstood Simon. Your ignorance comes from good place. You seem like a decent person who just happens to have more heart than brains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Is North Korea a democracy?

---

What kind of question is that? North Korea isn't a democracy has nothing to do with the question I asked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

What kind of question is that? North Korea isn't a democracy has nothing to do with the question I asked

---

Tell me 5 things that make North Korea not a democracy.

They don't have a democratically elected government....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

They don't have a democratically elected government....

---

You're not playing the game...... 4 more?

Give me some characteristics that help define Korea's government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

What is my side of the isle? Lol. As of yet Ive never declared one. Never advocated a utopian society either.

You know what happens when you assume....

---

While you may not claim to be a leftist, every stance you take on here is leftist.


I do find it funny how you grap onto 1 sentence and simply ignore everything else. Is it because I am right and you have no way to refute it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Assault weapons bans affect non-criminals, they dont affect criminals. You know this is true and when you say otherwise is simply you denying fact. I love the people that use sandy Hook as the reason we need more gun control. The problem with their argument is that even NY's gun bill would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook from happening. The current gun control measures worked when Lanza was denied when he tried to purchase a weapon. The fact that he simply went and stole one and used that is proof that a ban only affects those currently legally allowed to purchase a firearm.

---

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

---

This is simply not a stance that i agree with. It is an option that are forefathers were aware of when they disagreed with it. To me, thinking it is an option is offensive. When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous. Making guns less available to everyone, for the sake of making guns less available to criminals.... is NOT something i would ever support. There's no confusion between sides of this issue. I understand their stance... and strongly oppose it.

Also, the left side of the isle confidently speaks out that less guns equals less crime. Show me a place where that is proven to be true? statistics seem to show the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

---

Every person in the world is a non criminal until they make the conscience choice to become a criminal. You are wrong in that there is this gray area.

So you want to decide which non-criminals should be allowed to get guns? Obviously you dont because its not possible. So how else would you like to limit how many guns are available to non criminals?

Are you actually trying to tell me that if guns became less plentiful it would make the illegal gun trade disappear? Do you not think that other criminals would not simply move in to fill that void? This is why I bring up prohibition.

Since more people are killed with cars every year, why not limit cars too? That would save more lives than any gun ban would. Also, you have a Constitutional right to your guns, not to a car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

While you may not claim to be a leftist, every stance you take on here is leftist.

---

According to whom?

You?

Quote:

---

I do find it funny how you grasp onto 1 sentence and simply ignore everything else. Is it because I am right and you have no way to refute it?

---

No. Because I'm busy at work and don't have time to dissect your whole paragraphs. Either that or Im trying to get more focused answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous.

---

Definitely true, however you can't ignore that every law we have is a limiting of some freedom. Many of them are for the sake of safety. Driving tests, background checks, seat belt laws, and many many more. So by your definition, we haven't been free for a long long time. So, this is not going to be a very persuasive argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Making guns less available to everyone, for the sake of making guns less available to criminals.... is NOT something i would ever support. There's no confusion between sides of this issue. I understand their stance... and strongly oppose it.

---

And this is something we agree on which is why I'm trying to point out that beating someone over the head with your opinion is not going to change as many minds as recognizing the concerns of the other side and responding to them in a persuasive way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Also, the left side of the isle confidently speaks out that less guns equals less crime. Show me a place where that is proven to be true? statistics seem to show the opposite.

---

The fact is there are not sufficient statistics to prove either side but there is plenty of statistics that could support either side. FACT: countries with less guns generally have less gun crime. FACT: Switzerland has a lot of guns and little gun crime. Both are true but support opposite conclusions. Both sides speak confidently because they believe their facts are more important than the other sides facts. The reality is, most people believe what they want and then find facts to back it up afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Every person in the world is a non criminal until they make the conscience choice to become a criminal. You are wrong in that there is this gray area.

---

I'm not saying a person is both a criminal and non-criminal at the same time. I am saying a non-criminal can get a gun and then become a criminal by robbing someone with their legally purchased gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

So you want to decide which non-criminals should be allowed to get guns? Obviously you dont because its not possible. So how else would you like to limit how many guns are available to non criminals?

---

We already do. We say that mentally ill people can not buy guns. We also say you must have a class 3 license to buy certain weapons. Most people don't take much issue with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Are you actually trying to tell me that if guns became less plentiful it would make the illegal gun trade disappear? Do you not think that other criminals would not simply move in to fill that void? This is why I bring up prohibition.

---

As I stated before, the keyword is LESS not NONE. Of course the gun trade would not dissappear but prices would go up and supply would go down. Are you arguing that there was more and cheaper alcohol available during prohibition than when it was legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Since more people are killed with cars every year, why not limit cars too? That would save more lives than any gun ban would. Also, you have a Constitutional right to your guns, not to a car.

---

The answer is, as a society we agree that cars are very dangerous but we also recognize the immense value they provide. Therefor we agree on certain limitations such as driver's tests, mandatory insurance, and all the various driving laws. We even have rules on what kind of cars are allowed on our streets. The discussion the country is having on guns is very similar. What restrictions are legitimate to mitigate the dangers associated with guns while recognizing the benefits of guns. That is the argument we are having now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Definitely true, however you can't ignore that every law we have is a limiting of some freedom. Many of them are for the sake of safety. Driving tests, background checks, seat belt laws, and many many more. So by your definition, we haven't been free for a long long time. So, this is not going to be a very persuasive argument.

---

Having lost *some* freedom is not reason to volunteer more. I do feel our freedom is being chipped away in more areas than guns. Some things are a compromise and they are also conditional of a public space. I can drive a car without a license or seat belt on private property. Wearing a seat belt and having a license is a condition of driving on the public street. If you want to impose rules for carrying a gun on public property, that's fine. It is to my understanding that is already the case. A club can restrict access to someone carrying a gun. We have gun free zones. Your permission to carry a weapon is conditional already. Not that criminals do or ever will give a shit....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

And this is something we agree on which is why I'm trying to point out that beating someone over the head with your opinion is not going to change as many minds as recognizing the concerns of the other side and responding to them in a persuasive way.

---

There is no common ground with the liberal left to be shared. Theyre on a mission to remove guns, not make guns safer, not make schools safer, not punish criminals..... One thing about a bleeding heart is that theyre all terrified of their own blood. The best thing in my opinion we can do is continue reminding them of the mountain they will have to climb to accomplish their goal. Knowing the opposition that stands in front of them will break their spirits. The left rides the wave of public opinion and attempts to sway it as much as possible. When that wave crashes, they tuck tail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

The fact is there are not sufficient statistics to prove either side but there is plenty of statistics that could support either side. FACT: countries with less guns generally have less gun crime. FACT: Switzerland has a lot of guns and little gun crime. Both are true but support opposite conclusions. Both sides speak confidently because they believe their facts are more important than the other sides facts. The reality is, most people believe what they want and then find facts to back it up afterwards.

---

I agree, but it's a little too easy to poke holes in the left's argument. Every city where they got what they want, it turned out to be chaos. Now theyre using the excuse that neighboring cities and states not adopting their laws is why they have a problem. Ok, so at what point would that argument become invalid. If the entire US was a gun free zone, guns would still be imported. No place in the US is it legal to harvest cocaine, but we still have it. So what do we have to do to accurately prove that liberal policy does not work? convert the entire world? Make no mistake...... theyre trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)

Now obviously you can't legislate away crazy people killing others, nor can you make the millions of guns already in the country go away, nor will we ever prevent all gun crime. But it is not irrational to think that over a long period of time, having less guns could lead to at least a small decrease in gun crime.

As I have stated before, I do not personally think that we need an assault weapons ban but I do understand where the proponents of such a ban are coming from and I don't think they are morons for the thinking that way.

---

Innocent until proven guilty ... or just assume all are guilty? Just food for thought....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

As I stated before, the keyword is LESS not NONE. Of course the gun trade would not dissappear but prices would go up and supply would go down. Are you arguing that there was more and cheaper alcohol available during prohibition than when it was legal?



The answer is, as a society we agree that cars are very dangerous but we also recognize the immense value they provide. Therefor we agree on certain limitations such as driver's tests, mandatory insurance, and all the various driving laws. We even have rules on what kind of cars are allowed on our streets. The discussion the country is having on guns is very similar. What restrictions are legitimate to mitigate the dangers associated with guns while recognizing the benefits of guns. That is the argument we are having now.

---

I'm shocked at how you think this is a reasonable argument. why should the cost of guns go up and the demand go down? Also..... apply this logic to existing proposals..... the left isnt trying to ban cheap pawnshop pocket pistols... theyre trying to ban AR15s....... AR15s are already priced out of the criminal market. That's why you dont hear about liquor stores being robbed with AR15s.... because if you can afford an AR15 to begin with, you can probably front for bottle of boone's farm. This argument is contradictory.... and goes to prove what you said before, "people believe what they believe, then plug in stats afterwards".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

According to whom?

You?


No. Because I'm busy at work and don't have time to dissect your whole paragraphs. Either that or Im trying to get more focused answers.

---

You're so far left that you believe your far left agenda is the middle, like your other far lefties are trying to sell in the media. " American wanted this, its not the left, its america"....

You sir, are about as left as left gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You're so far left that you believe your far left agenda is the middle, like your other far lefties are trying to sell in the media. " American wanted this, its not the left, its america"....

You sir, are about as left as left gets.

---

According to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

According to you?

---

In the spirit of finding common ground..... lets talk about the republican agendas that you support.

ready set go.....

Dont hurt yourself from typing so fast.

Free market. A degree of limited government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Free market. A degree of limited government.

---

by free market you mean a market that drives up the cost of guns in hopes of eventually drying up the demand? or do you mean a market that applies the same tactics to natural gas?

by limited government..... do you mean expanding all areas of government control and removing any remnant of civilian's power to oppose it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

lets examine laws and their implications critically and rationally...

I could go buy an F1 car if I had the means, and no one could stop me, but its federally illegal. It'll get me from point a to point b, uses gas, subject to the same laws of physics as all the other cars on the road. As a responsible F1 car owner, I keep it in my garage, wash it, start it up once in a while, and take it to the race track when I want. No one notices me because I'm not out making an ass out of myself. But what about the guy that isn't so responsible? What if he takes it out to get a Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Taco from Taco Bell? The F1 car isn't designed to drive on a public road. No headlights, turn signals, slick tires, etc., then you t-bone someone at 50mph. Since its federally illegal, not only have you committed a state crime, but now you've committed a federal crime. You're punishment gets that much worse since you knew you weren't supposed to have it on the street in the first place. Did you kill the guy you t-boned? Since someone died during your commission of a federal crime, you're looking at murder to start with instead of involuntary manslaughter.

What happens when you ban a specific set of weapons manufactured after a certain date? The demand for those specific weapons goes down. What happens when demand goes down? The people making them, make less of them. The less weapons you make, the less there are in circulation, the less chance of a weapon ending up in the hands of someone who isn't so responsible. Guess who doesn't like the idea of selling less guns? The companies that make those guns.

Stop using liberal as a pejorative. Makes you sound uneducated. The only people who still use liberal and conservative as a pejorative are people who don't actually know what they mean.

---

believes in a free market, believes the government should have the ability to manipulate the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Having lost *some* freedom is not reason to volunteer more. I do feel our freedom is being chipped away in more areas than guns. Some things are a compromise and they are also conditional of a public space. I can drive a car without a license or seat belt on private property. Wearing a seat belt and having a license is a condition of driving on the public street. If you want to impose rules for carrying a gun on public property, that's fine. It is to my understanding that is already the case. A club can restrict access to someone carrying a gun. We have gun free zones. Your permission to carry a weapon is conditional already. Not that criminals do or ever will give a shit....

---

Your right having lost some freedoms is not a reason to volunteer more but it also means that it's not a strong rebuttal for the opposite. I think the public/private space argument is a good argument to make and could lead to some compromises. Although many people on the pro gun side are arguing the opposite, that guns should be allowed into nearly every public location including schools. Also, not an important point but clubs aren't public property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

There is no common ground with the liberal left to be shared. Theyre on a mission to remove guns, not make guns safer, not make schools safer, not punish criminals..... One thing about a bleeding heart is that theyre all terrified of their own blood. The best thing in my opinion we can do is continue reminding them of the mountain they will have to climb to accomplish their goal. Knowing the opposition that stands in front of them will break their spirits. The left rides the wave of public opinion and attempts to sway it as much as possible. When that wave crashes, they tuck tail.

---

Interesting take on things but it does have the downside of inhibiting compromise for those who really do care about safety which I think is more people than you are willing to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I agree, but it's a little too easy to poke holes in the left's argument. Every city where they got what they want, it turned out to be chaos. Now theyre using the excuse that neighboring cities and states not adopting their laws is why they have a problem. Ok, so at what point would that argument become invalid. If the entire US was a gun free zone, guns would still be imported. No place in the US is it legal to harvest cocaine, but we still have it. So what do we have to do to accurately prove that liberal policy does not work? convert the entire world? Make no mistake...... theyre trying.

---

Actually I think you are more right than you want to be. Banning handguns in Chicago city limits doesn't do much if there are so many guns freely available within a 5 minute drive of the city limits. So it really doesn't prove or disprove anything. Honestly, to know for sure, we would need similar bans for the entire country and then analyze statistics for the next decade or two. The real world is messy and social sciences are always up for debate. We have to make our best judgements with imperfect data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Innocent until proven guilty ... or just assume all are guilty? Just food for thought....

---

Guilty of what? Gun owners aren't immune to being robbed. And the response was to the comment that "criminals aren't affected by laws". I was saying that they are affected at very least indirectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

believes in a free market, believes the government should have the ability to manipulate the market.

---

I think you're unclear on what free market means. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Guilty of what? Gun owners aren't immune to being robbed. And the response was to the comment that "criminals aren't affected by laws". I was saying that they are affected at very least indirectly.

"First of all, you make a distinction between criminals and non-criminals as if people are always one or the other. The fact is, every criminal was at one point a non-criminal before they committed a crime. The ease of which non-criminals can get a gun is therefore not an entirely separate issue from the ease with which a criminal can get a gun. Further, a large number of guns used in crimes are stolen. If those guns were not purchased legally, they could not have been stolen and subsequently used in a crime. What it boils down to is this... if there are less guns available to the general public, there will also be less available to criminals. (keyword is LESS, not NONE)"

---

Kind of obvious - Suggesting the removal of Constitutional rights from non-criminals in the hopes that such an effort would affect the ability of criminals to obtain weapons illegally, which is at its core, is simply negating the differences between criminals and non-criminals by criminalizing the behavior of non-criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I'm shocked at how you think this is a reasonable argument. why should the cost of guns go up and the demand go down? Also..... apply this logic to existing proposals..... the left isnt trying to ban cheap pawnshop pocket pistols... theyre trying to ban AR15s....... AR15s are already priced out of the criminal market. That's why you dont hear about liquor stores being robbed with AR15s.... because if you can afford an AR15 to begin with, you can probably front for bottle of boone's farm. This argument is contradictory.... and goes to prove what you said before, "people believe what they believe, then plug in stats afterwards".

---

I didn't say demand would go down I said supply would go down. Simple economics. If a supply goes down and demand stays the same, prices will go up. Also, about AR15s, I agree with what you said. The reason they want to ban them isn't because they are commonly used in crimes, it's because they are less common but more "effective tools" and so there would not be as much resistance. Using the car analogy again, it's like banning Ferraris instead of Hondas. People can get on board with restricting luxuries with less practical value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Kind of obvious - Suggesting the removal of Constitutional rights from non-criminals in the hopes that such an effort would affect the ability of criminals to obtain weapons illegally, which is at its core, is simply negating the differences between criminals and non-criminals by criminalizing the behavior of non-criminals.

---

Not everyone believe owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right. Most people are fine with background checks. Is that also a criminalizing of the behavior of non-criminals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Your right having lost some freedoms is not a reason to volunteer more but it also means that it's not a strong rebuttal for the opposite. I think the public/private space argument is a good argument to make and could lead to some compromises. Although many people on the pro gun side are arguing the opposite, that guns should be allowed into nearly every public location including schools. Also, not an important point but clubs aren't public property.

---

You understand the point, its more aimed at having conditions for particular spaces.... which we already do anyways and it has zero effect on criminals. If anything.... it assists criminals. If a criminal wants to kill a bunch of people, theyre not going to go assault the barracks at ft benning, theyre going to search out a place where they will find the least resistance, nothing advertises that more than " GUN FREE ZONE "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Interesting take on things but it does have the downside of inhibiting compromise for those who really do care about safety which I think is more people than you are willing to accept.

---

The mistake you make is that safety is a side of the fence. Both sides want safety, where we differ is in how to accomplish it. The left has a habit of making emotional policies vs rational ones. They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Actually I think you are more right than you want to be. Banning handguns in Chicago city limits doesn't do much if there are so many guns freely available within a 5 minute drive of the city limits. So it really doesn't prove or disprove anything. Honestly, to know for sure, we would need similar bans for the entire country and then analyze statistics for the next decade or two. The real world is messy and social sciences are always up for debate. We have to make our best judgements with imperfect data.

---

Ok, so since that option simply is never going to happen........

let's build a 30 foot wall around chicago and patiently watch as it becomes a thriving economic paradise without interferance from the outside world..... lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

I didn't say demand would go down I said supply would go down. Simple economics. If a supply goes down and demand stays the same, prices will go up. Also, about AR15s, I agree with what you said. The reason they want to ban them isn't because they are commonly used in crimes, it's because they are less common but more "effective tools" and so there would not be as much resistance. Using the car analogy again, it's like banning Ferraris instead of Hondas. People can get on board with restricting luxuries with less practical value.

---

Let's go back to the car analogy that started this thread. You've pointed out that we are off-course. :-)

On the main page of CNN right now are two terrible car crashes, and both involved SUVs.
Teen tragedy: 5 die in fiery collision with tanker truck in Texas - CNN.com
6 teens killed, 2 injured when overcrowded SUV flips into pond - CNN.com

Both of these crashes happened within hours of each other.The first crash in OH killed 6 teens, and injured 2 others. The second crash in TX killed 5 teens.
11 teens dead that fast.
Such accidents took the lives of about a quarter of the 15- to 24-year-olds who died in 2010, according to the most recent numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They outpaced the other top culprits: firearm wounds, homicides, suicides and accidental poisonings.

Where are the outcrys to ban SUVs? They are obviously more deadly, and available everywhere to everyone, with no restrictions. Why isn't Obama on the TV promising to push for "SUV control"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I think you're unclear on what free market means. Lol

---

I admit, i am very loosely versed in what a liberal democrat would call "free" or "freedom".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You understand the point, its more aimed at having conditions for particular spaces.... which we already do anyways and it has zero effect on criminals. If anything.... it assists criminals. If a criminal wants to kill a bunch of people, theyre not going to go assault the barracks at ft benning, theyre going to search out a place where they will find the least resistance, nothing advertises that more than " GUN FREE ZONE "

---

Spoken like someone who isn't trying to assault someone with a gun.

It doesn't always work how you think it does.

Quote:

---

The mistake you make is that safety is a side of the fence. Both sides want safety, where we differ is in how to accomplish it. The left has a habit of making emotional policies vs rational ones. They also have no issues with burning down the forest to remove a tree.

---

This is laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Not everyone believe owning an assault weapon is a constitutional right. Most people are fine with background checks. Is that also a criminalizing of the behavior of non-criminals?

---

Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I admit, i am very loosely versed in what a rational human would call "free" or "freedom".

---

This we can agree on.

I'm not a democrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Spoken like someone who isn't trying to assault someone with a gun.

It doesn't always work how you think it does.

This is laughable.

---

You're right. I'm not trying to assault someone with a gun, but that doesnt stop the left from wanting my gun does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

This we can agree on.

I'm not a democrat.

---

Awesome.

I'm riding a unicorn to work today where i will be assembling light sabers powered by fairy dust. Jesus died for your sins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Background checks are not removing a Constitutional right IF the person is not a criminal. The laws are very clear on this point.

The very definition of the current proposed legistation would make any semi-automatic weapon illegal. That's a very broad net to cast.

---

However they want to shape it or sell it, the left wants to get rid of all guns. They cast a broad net on purpose, to remove as many guns as possible.