Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383184/who-speaks-hate-you-decide/20#post_3349527
Here is the thing. Your average Joe citizen doesn't NEED a weapon.
Like a previous poster stated, you don't need to worry about French/German/Iranian soldiers walking up and down your street trying to break into your home, I think we can all agree on that.
The next argument is that you need to bear arms in order to protect yourself from the government. I assume you are referring to the times when the former British colonial armies could yield their power and you literally needed to be able to protect yourself if they choose to do so. I understand that too, if it were the late 1700's. It;s 2011. I find it highly unlikely that in this day in age it would EVER get to the point that you would literally have to fight off the United States military in your own front yard. I know some of you would probably disagree with that, but I think that's absurd.
Lastly, one would argue that you need to bear arms in order to defend yourself in general; be it a home invasion, robbery, hold up, etc. This is the one instance where I think it holds water. However, I think that you need to have some SERIOUS restrictions on that. I'm completely convinced that something as small as a .22 could very easily be used to defend yourself in 98% of all instances. Assault rifes, sawed off shotguns, most big rifles, 357's, etc are nothing but overkill. I know for you hunters a rifle is used, which I can also understand, so I wouldn't be too bothered by that.
So I am not someone who wants to ban guns, or toss the 2nd amendment, I just think it needs some serious restrictions. Because every single time I hear the argument that "if people are carrying they can stop the Jared Laughner's of the world"... Well, it seems to me that every time a shooting happens, the only thing that stops them is a reload, a police officer, or them turning the guns on themselves. Never once do you hear the story "This shooting could have been much worse, but local resident Shooter McGraw happened to be carrying his weapon, and he took out the perp".
It blows my mind, the government needs to tell us what to do. We were raised the complete opposite way. I can quite frankly handle myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383184/who-speaks-hate-you-decide/20#post_3349551
How many women who have had abortions have feeling of extreme remorse after because they didn't think things through? Maybe we should ban abortions because unlike a gun purchase we know an abortion will end a human life.
What you guys don't seem to get is once you grant the government the power to limit what kind of gun you may own based on some of the questionable rational in this thread whats to keep them from assuming that same power in other aspect of your life?
Ans Clemson, you better be able to get a head shot with your 22 cause the odds of stopping someone intent on attacking you are pretty slim unless you can hit the heart which is also a long shot with such a small round. Still better than nothing. A casual robber would stop at the threat of any gun but some of these crazies doing the home invasions aren't going to stop unless you put them down.
lol, if anything her surviving a 9 MM shot in the head, is living proof you need bigger guns, for home defense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WangoTango http:///forum/thread/383184/who-speaks-hate-you-decide/40#post_3350340
But members of "the right" took responsibility for severing the gas lines to a Democratic representative's brother's house. A "righty" blogger took responsibility for ordering the window breaking of Democratic offices. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-all-modern-sons-of-liberty-this-is.html
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/
"I trust Ms. Lopez will have the courage of her convictions and accompany the ATF raid parties directed to the doors of previously law-abiding firearm owners to enforce that unconstitutional diktat. If Ms. Lopez and her fellow citizen disarmament advocates want our military-pattern semi-automatic firearms and magazines and have the juice to pass a law to that effect, they should by all means come and get them. Come and get 'em and watch what happens."
This "whose side is worse" argument is like pong. It's just going to be lobbed back and forth. You cannot exonerate either side but vilifying the other. Continuing to argue and post counter-arguments as to why it's the other guy is futile.
Spoken like a person who can in no way win an argument....
All you have to do, is look at where the stronger speech is. Dem's come from freaks in office, the President, senate and house majority leaders (thank god they used to be), Democrat royalty, Teddy Kennedy (see robert Bork) We can look at 8 years of them attacking bush. (and then examine Bush's response) this argument holds no water. Pong or not...
