Because people like Senator Frankenstein in California actually want a ban on all weapons in the US. They can't get that so they ban and try to limit the access to any firearm they can. They still want a universal ban on all firearms though.
I don't like gun control because it's still a limit on the second amendment. If there was a large push to limit the first amendment in order to make it illegal to offend people, would you support it? I mean, it makes people feel nice and safe and it's not a ban on speaking.
Dumping my lolGun Control folder: http://imgur.com/a/JBwxT
[quote]Thousands of people who live in cities are killed by guns each year (including hundreds of children), and the public makes a huge display of Newtown. I don't want to pull the race card, but someone please justify this.[/quote]Because the media tells them to make a huge display of Newtown. The government doesn't actually care about what happened there, but they see it as a way to scare people into thinking that "this could happen where you live, this could be your children". It's all to scare people into thinking that guns are super scary things that have no place at all in our world. Look at the CSGV, they use the deaths of people who died because of firearms and they use them for their own agenda, they don't give two shits about any other victim because they can't use them for their own goals.
[quote]Point is, learn the definition, because if you don't agree with some sort of gun control, you basically believe in anarchy.[/quote]lel no. Please, learn the definition of Anarchy before trying to use it against people. Saying that the government shouldn't have any intrusion into what firearms we should have access to is not the same as saying that there should be no government. Don't go throwing red herrings into the mix.
English
-
[quote]I don't like gun control because it's still a limit on the second amendment.[/quote]So you believe people should be able to own tanks?
-
We can own tanks dunderhead. http://armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
-
Militarized tanks? No.
-
If you can get the blessing of the government to do it, there's not much you can't do. You can buy artillery shells or you can make your own, and it wouldn't be hard to put the tank back into working condition. Artillery shells are already on the market considering that regular joe schmo can buy the largest weapon on the market that isn't considered a cannon yet that still fires artillery shells. I don't know what size they fire though.
-
And we should be able to have nukes too, the government is so evil.
-
Dat slippery slope, red herring argument. Damn, you're so educated in how to use fallacies against me, I just can't argue against it. Oh wait, watch the video.
-
Cool, so you do believe there is a line. Then you believe in some gun control.
-
Edited by Xplode441: 4/6/2013 8:51:13 PM[quote]Then you believe in some gun control.[/quote]Because nukes are totally guns right? Because nukes are totally guaranteed under the second amendment right? You resorted to a red herring argument and now you think you've accomplished something by that.
-
The Second Amendment protects [b]the right to bear arms.[/b] Arms are weapons. Nukes are weapons. Nukes are arms.
-
Not as defined by the SCOTUS. Troll harder bro.
-
Then what would a nuke classify as? And how am I trolling? My beliefs are different from yours? You don't need to insult everyone you disagree with.
-
[url=http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/01/the-founders-and-the-2nd-amendment/]Now at this point someone favoring gun control always comes up with the line, “Well, does that mean that citizens have the right to hoard naval artillery and atomic bombs?” And the answer is “No, the Second Amendment doesn’t encompass naval artillery or atomic bombs any more than the First Amendment includes falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” The language and purposes of the Second Amendment, as well as its history, tell us what it excludes as well as what it includes. Naval artillery and atomic bombs are not customary for personal self-defense and they never have been militia weapons used for repelling foreign invaders and domestic tyrants. In fact, the Second Amendment itself refers to the right to bear arms—that is, to carry arms—referring to weapons that normally are carried by a human being.[/url]
-
Haha red herring. Mmm. Funny, you threw out the first fish when you compared gun control to speech control, which is irrelevant to the argument of gun control.
-
[quote] Mmm. Funny, you threw out the first fish when you compared gun control to speech control, which is irrelevant to the argument of gun control.[/quote]How is it irrelevant? I'm simply saying that they're both guaranteed under the bill of rights. OP said that we should be okay with gun control because it's not getting rid of the right to own guns but is just making the world a safer and nicer place. I simply used his same argument and applied it to the first amendment to show him why that argument is stupid when you apply it to something that you deeply care about. He's perfectly fine with limiting gun rights, but apparently not with limiting speech rights to make the world a nicer and safer place. OP then related firearm rights to the right to own a nuclear weapon. Something that's not guaranteed under the second amendment. Argo the red herring argument comes into place. lrn2fallacy
-
So criminals? You don't think there should be any restriction on them?
-
[quote]So criminals? You don't think there should be any restriction on them?[/quote]They deserve the same right to defense as I do. However they forfeit their right when they commit a serious federal felony.
-
Banning the sale to criminals is a gun control measure.
-
Implying that I said I'm against gun control. Please, quote me where I said that. All I said was that I don't like it because it's a limit on our rights. Nowhere did I say that I think we should be rid of all the laws already put in place. I think we don't need any more laws because the ones we have now are more than sufficient. If you need something new, then fix a problem with one of the older laws. Adding new laws is like just throwing another feather onto a rhinoceros to pin it down when there are already thousands of feathers on there to try and pin it down.
-
Edited by Enlightened One: 4/6/2013 8:21:49 PMYes! If they are: -A law abiding citizen -Have the money -Have the necessary space to use it safely.. We are talking miles of land here. Why do people play that argument? Nukes are one of the few things I wouldn't want organizations and rich people to have.. Some jack ass will screw up and end up killing millions in an instant.. A tank can't even kill hundreds of thousands in an instant. So its much safer and more reasonable to be allowed to own one of those.