Kalifornia silliness...

To follow the logic of some, we should also ban automobiles, because sometimes a drunk drives one and kills somebody, therefore it's the car's fault.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Cars have a functional use far beyond killing people. Guns are designed to kill people.
Click to expand...




Guns are designed to but can be used for home protection or hunting. Cars have a use in getting somewhere though some such as SUVs are horrible for the environment and also more people die from car accidents than from guns
 
Guns are designed to injure, maim or kill. Cars are designed to transport people. Therein lies the inherent difference that makes the analogy unsafe. Anything can be used as a weapon, but guns offer nothing else to society aside from being weapons.

Cars do. I won't disagree with you about SUVs, and I also think people shouldn't drive so fast and recklessly.
 
Today's history lesson, boys and girls!

I proudly present, for your viewing pleasure, the Gillis flag, aka the Confederate flag of the State of California.


325px-Gillisflag.png
 
Interesting some flag some major unfurled for a few minutes....

After Major Gillis had demonstrated his feelings, Biderman and Clark followed him; Biderman approached Gillis, caught him by the throat with his left hand, and, with his right, tore the flag from the stick, and put it in his pocket.
Click to expand...


Good work Biderman!

So to be historically accurate it was one persons flag not that of California.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Guns are designed to injure, maim or kill. Cars are designed to transport people. Therein lies the inherent difference that makes the analogy unsafe. Anything can be used as a weapon, but guns offer nothing else to society aside from being weapons.
Click to expand...

Perhaps thats what cars are designed to do, but they are used to quite deadly effect when the wrong person gets behind the wheel. That whole argument is moot, however, when you take a look at the US Constitution. Owning a firearm is protected...just like free speech, a free press, and freedom of religion. Bitch all you want, but it is protected. Privately owned automobiles, however, are not protected. Nobody has a right to drive. Freedom of movement is implied, but not driving.

BH said:
Cars do. I won't disagree with you about SUVs, and I also think people shouldn't drive so fast and recklessly.
Click to expand...

Then start taking away licenses after every accident, and every moving violation, and impound the car. If said offender doesn't pass a mandatory, state-run, driving course, then they get niether back...
 
Bobby Hogg said:
That particular part of the US constitution is archaic, a product of its times.
Click to expand...

Then so is free speech, freedom of religion, a free press, private property (which is also threatened), etc. The bill of rights is framed so that each right supports the others.
 
Those aren't archaic. They remain valid and contemporary rights. The "right to bear arms" law wasn't made with how powerful and increasingly deadly firearms would become in mind. It wasn't made with the idea in mind that assault rifles and automatic weapons would be freely available.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Those aren't archaic. They remain valid and contemporary rights. The "right to bear arms" law wasn't made with how powerful and increasingly deadly firearms would become in mind. It wasn't made with the idea in mind that assault rifles and automatic weapons would be freely available.
Click to expand...

Firearms have always been powerful and deadly. The only thing that's changed is the loading mechanism speed.

And for those who need to know...assault weapons are illegal to own in the US. Assault weapons are fully automatic combat weapons. Automatic weapons, which are misnamed, are only semi-automatic. If you've ever been in combat, you'd know that bullets from an assault weapon on full auto are there for nuisance value more than for killing. By lumping everything together like most anti-gun people, you show only ignorance.
 
I like guns. I may, in fact, go buy another today. Why? Because I can & it pises off the libs.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Those aren't archaic. They remain valid and contemporary rights. The "right to bear arms" law wasn't made with how powerful and increasingly deadly firearms would become in mind. It wasn't made with the idea in mind that assault rifles and automatic weapons would be freely available.
Click to expand...

Oh, really?

Justify yourself. They are all necessary, and if you support removal of one, you eventually support removal of them all.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Firearms have always been powerful and deadly. The only thing that's changed is the loading mechanism speed.

And for those who need to know...assault weapons are illegal to own in the US. Assault weapons are fully automatic combat weapons. Automatic weapons, which are misnamed, are only semi-automatic. If you've ever been in combat, you'd know that bullets from an assault weapon on full auto are there for nuisance value more than for killing. By lumping everything together like most anti-gun people, you show only ignorance.
Click to expand...

I'm quite happily ignorant about guns.

I mean, I don't live in the US so I don't really care for the most part. I just find it sort of curious how in love you all are with this right. I can only imagine how much worse things would have been here had guns been freely available to the general public, and not only to people with criminal contacts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and, of course, the USA.

I would maintain, however, that the right to bear arms was not established with today's world in mind. I think the other rights should be defended at all costs, as they should be in any nation.
 
Just as soon as the right to free speech is available in Europe we'll start working on gun ownership.
 
Pretty sure it is available.

I daresay most countries in Western, Northern and Southern Europe are "more free" than the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top