stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Hollywood]

Originally Posted by EvilMallet [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

founding fathers were profiteers who wanted to break off from the british to avoid taxes, and they lived in an era where owning a gun was your only method of protecting yourself and getting food.

Those men supported your right to bear arms because it meant you were very likely to kill some redcoats.

A) Someone's been playing Assasssin's Creed III too much.
B) Again why is this shit not in the general discussion forum?

[patriot1776]

In America, we believe being able to defend yourself, both inside and out of the home, is a basic human right. Fuck Europe, and Fuck british colonies like Canada and Australia for butting into our business.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by patriot1776 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In America, we believe being able to defend yourself, both inside and out of the home, is a basic human right. Fuck Europe, and Fuck british colonies like Canada and Australia for butting into our business.

This made me laugh really hard. Good stuff! I love it!

[patriot1776]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by patriot1776 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did.... did you just have a change of heart?

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did.... did you just have a change of heart?

Oh! nvm, sorry for the derp.

[Vellatri]

The U.S. is the most violent of first-world nations? What is the U.K then, chopped liver? Its violent crime rate is much higher than ours. Other "first-world" nations also make us look good. This is why people keep saying "gun crime" instead of "all crime" or "violent crime." It's just a tactic to sometimes twist the figures in their favor.

Jon Stewart is a great comedian, but obviously not a logician. In order to back up his claim that gun control might work, he noted that regulating alcohol abuse works: "No, but we do enact stricter blood-alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties and charge bartenders who serve drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question."

It's interesting to note that nobody seems to be against regulating the abuse of firearms. All agree that the shooting of innocents must be penalized, for example. Regulating the objects that are abused, however, is a different matter. I wonder why Stewart didn't cite alcohol prohibition in defense of his desired gun regulations. It worked so well, right? Didn't it?

It's also funny that he claims the Second Amendment only protects muskets while he exercises his First Amendment rights using television.

Since everyone enjoys watching television instead of actually reading, here's another good one: Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh! nvm, sorry for the derp.

Yeah, Lexical, it's called sarcasm. Sadly, I think many won't get it.

[patriot1776]

The debate has become so skewed by the two party system (like every other issue in this country) that we are now arguing for the ability of law-abiding citizens to own the most basic form of functional modern weaponry known to man: a semi automatic rifle. We're not talking about how it be illegal for them to own fully automatic guns, or grenade launchers. We're down to literally restricting the weaponry of the law-abiding American citizenry to kissing bolt-action antiques (except for the rich who can afford to buy bodyguards that are permitted to own the weapons us plebs aren't). This is ridiculous.

[vaylorie]

The liberal approach, as is generally the case, is an incremental increase in regulation. They will propose major changes like banning and confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons without ever being serious. In turn, it lets them 'settle' on smaller restrictions that they really want like magazine capacity caps and a national registry.

Then, when it happens again (since they aren't fixing the real problem), they will cause another uproar and do the same thing. Incrementally piece by piece they will try to achieve their goal of disarming the people. This is the way that these things historically work.

You paltry liberals smile while they take away your liberties and then you thank the for the privilege. Pathetic.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The liberal approach, as is generally the case, is an incremental increase in regulation. They will propose major changes like banning and confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons without ever being serious. In turn, it lets them 'settle' on smaller restrictions that they really want like magazine capacity caps and a national registry.

Then, when it happens again (since they aren't fixing the real problem), they will cause another uproar and do the same thing. Incrementally piece by piece they will try to achieve their goal of disarming the people. This is the way that these things historically work.

You paltry liberals smile while they take away your liberties and then you thank the for the privilege. Pathetic.

are u even mentaly capable of grasping how dum u sound