"No one needs to own a semiautomatic"

View previous topic View next topic Go down

"No one needs to own a semiautomatic"

Post by sWamp-Ass on Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:48 pm



"No one needs to own a semiautomatic" Why just just semiautomatics? For the same reason (whatever that is) that would cause a person to say "no one needs to own semi-automatics" couldn't another person say "no one needs to own ANY guns?" After all, if banning "automatic" weapons is good, and banning semi-automatic weapons good, then what could be better than just banning all guns altogether?

So we agree. No guns for any civillians period. Now, we must assume that these gun bans work because otherwise we wouldn't want or have them in the first place. So, assuming they work (meaning reduced murders) then unfortunately other means of murdering people would logically become more prevalent than they were before because guns are no longer available to kill people with.

Shortly hereafter a person is heard saying (again, for that very same reason that banned semiautomatics in the first place), "we could be even more safe if we banned all those dangerous weapons people now use to kill others." Soon, there is a excitement to ban this next level of dangerous weapons now called "potential-assault-weapons" by the media. "Potential-assault-weapons" include, but are not limited to; boxcutters, tomahawks, butcher knives, bb guns, rat poison, aluminum baseball bats, Boy Scout knives, broken beer bottles, automobiles, wood chippers, clenched fists, weight lifting, karate, rocks and sticks or at some point has this theory gotten ridiculous?

If this thought experiment has crossed the line and become ridiculous where and when was this line crossed?

This line was crossed the minute "no one needs to own a semiautomatic" was uttered.

The problem with the logic of anti-gun people is that gun owners do not want to do anything to anyone else. They don't want to take anything from others or make them do anything. But, the anti-gun people want to take things from others (gun owners) and make them do things that they don't want to.

Gun owners want to be left alone, and anti-gun people want to take their property. Who is the trubble maker in this scenario?

It's almost as if the anti-gun people know who the bad guys and the good guys are and they can pick them out. After all, civilians can't have guns therefore they are bad or at least can't be trusted. And of course, the elite - the government can have guns, they are good and can be trusted.

Well, if they can pick out who's good and bad (obviously they can, the good wind up in government and the rest get weeded out into civilian life), why not do away with the courts and just line everybody up in one big line, and have the anti-gun people point out everybody who is a criminal and we can ship them away on boats?

Once we've rid ourselves of all the guns and only the police and government have guns we must then hope this prohibition works better than the the alcohol and drug prohibitions have worked in this country, but let's assume that they work. Now that only the state has the guns, we have created, by definition, a POLICE STATE. And, now that we have a police state, where only the police have guns and the people don't, what do you think will stop the police from doing whatever it is that they want? Oh yes, I forgot, these men were not cut of the same clothe as civilians, they are super-human. And this brings us right back, if we can pick the super-humans apart from the rest of us, why didn't we just do this in the first place and pick all the criminals out in the beginning?

Of course, this argument makes no sense and this is because gun prohibition doesn't. The gun prohibition argument is based on not trusting your friends and neighbors. It's based on trusting strangers and government more than those you know and live with. It's faith in a system. It's blind faith in a system that by definition has no checks or balances in it.

Funny, but wasn't this checks and balances problem already dealt with one time before???

Swamp-Ass


Last edited by sWamp-ass on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:58 am; edited 5 times in total

sWamp-Ass
VIP(VeryImportantPoster)
VIP(VeryImportantPoster)

Number of posts : 593
Reputation : 0
Points : 3596
Registration date : 2012-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: "No one needs to own a semiautomatic"

Post by sWamp-Ass on Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:56 pm


In the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

Source/More Here.

sWamp-Ass
VIP(VeryImportantPoster)
VIP(VeryImportantPoster)

Number of posts : 593
Reputation : 0
Points : 3596
Registration date : 2012-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: "No one needs to own a semiautomatic"

Post by sWamp-Ass on Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:37 pm


sWamp-Ass
VIP(VeryImportantPoster)
VIP(VeryImportantPoster)

Number of posts : 593
Reputation : 0
Points : 3596
Registration date : 2012-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: "No one needs to own a semiautomatic"

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum