And that has what to do with the argument?
And that's an even more confusing reply.....I didn't question your right to have guns, or cars, or any other crap American's are "entitled" to via your Constitution. I merely pointed out, that death by car, is not the same as death by gun
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
I could not agree more! However, drink driving - A CRIME IN-UNTO ITSELF. Owning a gun - YOUR RIGHT.
Again, quite different really - Especially when the original bit about cars/guns didn't making the drink driving claim, merely cars kill more than guns
---------- Post added 2012-12-22 at 12:11 AM ----------
Qualification does not equal licence now does it, come on
The point is, even if the original purpose of guns was as a tool in warfare to balance the odds between a highly trained army and commoners, the epitome of which was seen in the collapse of the Feudal caste system in Japan, their use has since expanded and encompasses more uses beyond to shoot and kill.
Considering the Dems love affair with taxes I'm surprised they aren't proposing to put taxes on assault weapons.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
"Assault Weapons" fall under "common use" according to the Heller case, which upheld the individual right to bear arms in 2008. Why? They're used in self-defense, are commonly owned, and function no differently from any other semi-automatic hunting rifles. The weapons they want to ban are not akin to fully-automatic weapons
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
You're joking right? Collection is not the use...ie the purpose...of anything.
Target shooting, is simulation shooting. Or, practice killing, if you will
---------- Post added 2012-12-22 at 12:17 AM ----------
Not when stated as means of entry it's not, ie you stating you can have plutonium if qualified.
More like i don't want to. It's not my job.
By then you would have limited the issue of gun abusing to a selected part of society and you can work your way to start cleaning up the mess.
Add heavy handed sanctions to whoever is caught carrying a gun and you'll see how the "criminals" would start NOT carrying.
Regulations, perfect. Exactly what we need. That might mean banning some kind of firearms would it not?
Let's not get into philosophic discussion of what kind of society we want to live into. Liberty has a price to pay, and that is the respect of someone else's.
I sat alone in the dark one night, tuning in by remote.
I found a preacher who spoke of the light, but there was Brimstone in his throat.
He'd show me the way, according to him, in return for my personal check.
I flipped my channel back to CNN and lit another cigarette.