Quote:
Originally Posted by runlvlzero
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
EQ is a game. MQ is a program designed to cheat at said game. All players in the game agree to play by the same rules in order to not have cheating. One group of those players isn't permitted by some rule to have guns (military, police), while the rest are not.
You are making an illogical and irrational comparison between two different topics of contention. While analogous. They have no connection to each other.
We already have a well established right to bear arms that has been steadily eroded. And from the days that it was completely unregulated we didn't see any more tragedy than we do now.
We just see more tragedy per capita and guns happen to be what the media pays attention to. Rather than many other tragic deaths happening all the time.
One also is ignoring the philosophical right we who wish to bear arms bring to the table. That the purpose is not to cheat at the games, or to use them wantonly to maintain an edge on another group that is using them. Just that we have the right to have them and use them as we see fit. We see this in laws like the "castle doctrine".
Get off your self righteous high horse. You are fighting a fight for a group of people that really do want to see you powerless and helpless. They would be more than happy to sacrifice your life for a bit of extra "security" in their mind. Virtual security. Security that cannot even truly be ensured through the use of their own force.
Eliminating guns through laws will not make our society a freer, safer, happier society. It will just be one more nail in the coffin of America. Its a virtual meta safety. If you cant understand this. You truly have never been in a situation of powerlessness. I'm telling you right now. That if you allow this slippery slope to proceed just for good warm feelings that someone else told you so. You will result in shit like the holocost 2.0
|
Strawman much? Why do gun proponents equate gun control with getting rid of all the guns? Who said I trust the government to protect me? Alcohol is a regulated substance...does that mean we are on a "slippery slope" to being a dry nation?
I own a 12 gauge shotgun, two high powered rifles, a .22 for groundhogs, a .357 revolver for home defense, a .22 rimfire pistol and a black powder rifle. Yet I have no fear of gun control laws that make it nigh impossible to own ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPONS. You don't need to have these and you can't make a convincing argument for them.
If you are about to say that all of the guns I own can kill people, you still don't get my position. It is the difference between getting into a fight in 5th grade vs. getting into a fight with a bouncer. The 5th grade bully might blacken your eye, but the bouncer might permanently change your anatomy. If that analogy isn't clear, let me bludgeon you with it: you are not entitled to easy and cheap access to the latest and greatest killing tools. There is a difference of degree that should not be glossed over.
You pay taxes? Wouldn't you rather not? But you do it, because it is better for everyone if people cooperate in this way (you hope), and because you face legal consequences if you don't. Taxes are membership dues and an example of enabling certain freedoms by compromising others. You don't get to keep all of your IHOP paycheck because someone has to maintain the roads for your piece of shit Impala. Similarly, you don't get to have any gun/gun accessory you want. No matter how responsible you think you are, that is still one more lethal weapon added to the system. What happens if you die, or sell your BFG 9000? Maybe YOU were a responsible owner, but is the next guy? And the guy after that? It is perfectly equivalent to firing a gun without knowing what lies downfield.
Should there be no regulations on who can refine uranium? What if I have my own uranium mine and centrifuge? Many things stop being your "right" when they interfere with the public good. There are firearm/cartridge/magazine combinations that cross this line, as well as paths to gun possession that dodge this line. How anyone could advocate less restriction in these matters is boggling.