Guess you could say that the ray-gun control folks are up in arms and shootin’ off their mouths . . . ☻.And when anyone uses a gun to comit a crime, they are not apt to follow the gun laws anyway, and more laws won’t change that. . . . I would rather have a gun and not need it than not have one and be in a situation where it would be useful . . . ☺
How often does anyone find themselves in a situation where a gun is needed ? In all my years I can honestly say never. A gun used for its intended purpose is designed to maim & kill. I’m all in favor of it being used for hunting & skeet shooting but used for protection against who ? The boogeyman ? All too often guns get stolen or a child gets it with horrific results mishandling of the firearm.
That is absolutely false. States and cities with strict gun control laws have higher gun violence rates than those that do not. England has seen gun violence- along with ALL violent crime- SKYROCKET since banning guns. Brazil has strict gun control laws, yet vastly higher rates of gun crime than the US. Switzerland and Israel also have much lower rates of gun crime, despite very high rates of gun ownership. The bottom line is that, in ACTUAL REALITY, there is no correlation between strict gun control and less gun crime. You have to be completely insane to believe that people are safer when they are disarmed and defenseless.
Notice, also, how the anti-gun nut is using the very things he claims to oppose to get his way. That’s one of the truths about gun control nuts, they don’t want to get rid of guns, they just want the citizens disarmed so that they will be unable to resist the totalitarian government that “liberals” are currently demanding. They will not hesitate to use GOVERNMENT guns to threaten and control all people, because they despise the concept of liberty and see all persons as nothing more than state-owned livestock. THAT is the true motivation behind gun control, not “public safety.”
The 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the people protection from government tyranny. But the government has such better weapons, the Amendment has been essentially nullified. The whole dispute is just another distraction to keep the peasants busy when they’re not in the fields being exploited. Still, the government’s focus on exploitation has reduced the efficiency of controlling the populace through morality, so it’s better to have SOME kind of protection from the anarchists, barbarians, and mentally-challenged. Better to have and not need than to need and not have. .
The bottom line is that you can pass gun laws until you’re blue in the face, but anyone who doesn’t give a rats patootee about laws will find a way to illegally get one.There will be suppliers out there for them. And just like the drug cartels, arrest the head guy and someone else takes over.
Maybe once in a lifetime, if that, but when that time comes, a gun is needed. In my case, April 1988. My Beretta 9mm prevented four armed thieves from entering my house where my wife, two very young children and I lived. I also believe in dogs. My German Shepherd awakened us at 0200. One of the would-be robbers fired first, and I returned fire as a warning. They left, and no one was injured. A gun, properly used, will prevent crime.
margueritem almost 12 years ago
Good one.
McSpook almost 12 years ago
Reminds me of the old joke, “The beatings will continue until you cheer up.”
Coyoty Premium Member almost 12 years ago
The public safety people are the ones who want to be in control.
timtribbett almost 12 years ago
You’ll pry my raygun from my cold dead hands!
wndrwrthg almost 12 years ago
You are a fool.
puddleglum1066 almost 12 years ago
Was not the ACLU, was the Republican Party and its endless cutting of the mental-health budget. Thanks, Grover Norquist!
GoodQuestion Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Guess you could say that the ray-gun control folks are up in arms and shootin’ off their mouths . . . ☻.And when anyone uses a gun to comit a crime, they are not apt to follow the gun laws anyway, and more laws won’t change that. . . . I would rather have a gun and not need it than not have one and be in a situation where it would be useful . . . ☺
Dapperdan61 Premium Member almost 12 years ago
How often does anyone find themselves in a situation where a gun is needed ? In all my years I can honestly say never. A gun used for its intended purpose is designed to maim & kill. I’m all in favor of it being used for hunting & skeet shooting but used for protection against who ? The boogeyman ? All too often guns get stolen or a child gets it with horrific results mishandling of the firearm.
Retired Dude almost 12 years ago
Doesn’t matter what side of the issue I’m on . . . you’ll never convince me and I’ll never convince you.
Harrison_Bergeron almost 12 years ago
That is absolutely false. States and cities with strict gun control laws have higher gun violence rates than those that do not. England has seen gun violence- along with ALL violent crime- SKYROCKET since banning guns. Brazil has strict gun control laws, yet vastly higher rates of gun crime than the US. Switzerland and Israel also have much lower rates of gun crime, despite very high rates of gun ownership. The bottom line is that, in ACTUAL REALITY, there is no correlation between strict gun control and less gun crime. You have to be completely insane to believe that people are safer when they are disarmed and defenseless.
Harrison_Bergeron almost 12 years ago
Notice, also, how the anti-gun nut is using the very things he claims to oppose to get his way. That’s one of the truths about gun control nuts, they don’t want to get rid of guns, they just want the citizens disarmed so that they will be unable to resist the totalitarian government that “liberals” are currently demanding. They will not hesitate to use GOVERNMENT guns to threaten and control all people, because they despise the concept of liberty and see all persons as nothing more than state-owned livestock. THAT is the true motivation behind gun control, not “public safety.”
drose57 Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Sure beats those pro-gun guys shooting their mouths off.
Harrison_Bergeron almost 12 years ago
Most of them would have to.
echoraven almost 12 years ago
So no one noticed that the anti-ray-gun alien HAS the ray gun?
Sometimes, just let go of the damn politics and enjoy the gag.
DavidLena almost 12 years ago
The 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the people protection from government tyranny. But the government has such better weapons, the Amendment has been essentially nullified. The whole dispute is just another distraction to keep the peasants busy when they’re not in the fields being exploited. Still, the government’s focus on exploitation has reduced the efficiency of controlling the populace through morality, so it’s better to have SOME kind of protection from the anarchists, barbarians, and mentally-challenged. Better to have and not need than to need and not have. .
Calvins Brother almost 12 years ago
The bottom line is that you can pass gun laws until you’re blue in the face, but anyone who doesn’t give a rats patootee about laws will find a way to illegally get one.There will be suppliers out there for them. And just like the drug cartels, arrest the head guy and someone else takes over.
westny77 almost 12 years ago
Seriously The anti gun guy is threatening the other with 2 guns. This is funny.
ojhengen Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Maybe once in a lifetime, if that, but when that time comes, a gun is needed. In my case, April 1988. My Beretta 9mm prevented four armed thieves from entering my house where my wife, two very young children and I lived. I also believe in dogs. My German Shepherd awakened us at 0200. One of the would-be robbers fired first, and I returned fire as a warning. They left, and no one was injured. A gun, properly used, will prevent crime.
kaffekup almost 12 years ago
Brilliant argument, punk.
K M almost 12 years ago
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser.-Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery Scott