OK. If you say so.
Here's a bunch of diaramas.
Posted on 05/10/2005 5:40:00 PM PDT by future F22 pilot
Hey everyone I am debating people on gun control and I would find it interesting to know wut your top reasons are for bieng against gun control. Please dont repeat each other like puttin the 2nd ammendment 5 thousand times. Dont do that. Thanx
You answered this yourself on March 22nd.
FBI called to School Shooting (Red Lake, MN) Update: 10 dead
Posted by future F22 pilot to VinnyCee
On News/Activism 03/22/2005 9:06:09 PM CST · 207 of 219
The kid passed an UNARMED securtiy guard, if this guy had been ARMED chances are this whole thing would have been averted.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies
My top argument against gun control is that it only disarms law-abiding citizens. Someone who will break into your house or sell drugs will also ignore laws regarding guns.
But you only asked for 10
I forgot to add that if a person is not allowed to own and carry arms then he is not really free but a vassal of the government.
Eye Suppot The sekond Ammendnant Becawse the pen is Mitier then the swerd
Butt Ya caint git Closed enuff to comuneests to poke dem in duh I wiff duh pen an buy duh time you drawed yo swerd thay coold shute ya .
Sew Shute tham fust
Switzerland, where gun ownership is and training is MANDITORY, was the only country in Europe NOT invaded by the Nazis in WWII, and crimes against people/property are almost unheard of to this day.
Learn to read and write before touching a gun.
It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
And keeps the Govt. in check as the Framers wanted.
Stand back fellows, I can speak his 'l33t' video gamer-inspired language:
omgwtfbbq teh reason I am against gun control is bcuz the liberalz are lettgin all the fagz0rz n murders out of prison and u may ned to wtfpwn them sometimes yo. take a look around omglolcopterz soceity aint gettgin any better u know. plus its a right.
011011110110110101100111011101110111010001100110011000100110001001110001
More Guns, Less Crime (see the John Lott academic paper of the same title).
More Guns, Less Chance Of Tyranny. (See what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto and why Hitler wasn't stupid enough to attack the US directly.)
More Guns, Politer Society. (No real studies to back this up, but is widely accepted as the truth.)
The United Bank of Fillintheblank, located in a state where the law abiding citizens standing in the bank line had carry permits and might, just might, be packing heat?
Or...
The Bank of Blank, located in a gun control state, where only the bank guard carries a weapon (taser, probably - guns might kill someone) and faces potential prosecution from civil rights groups if he dares use any sort of force to maintain the peace?
OK. If you say so.
Here's a bunch of diaramas.
You are good enough, you are kind enough and people like you.
Now if you are not a troll let me formally apologize before you get the zot.
If you ARE a troll, then what you are about to get is well-deserved.
But FAR be it from me to decide, lest long-time FReepers get upset!
Second, 9/11 happened with box-cutters. The point is that it is part of humanity's psychological make-up to hurt each other. Look over the last several thousand years of history. Did killing people suddenly start up with the invention of the gun? Of course not. Therefore, assume that the Ulimate Wet Dream of a Gun Grabber is realized and all guns in the U.S. are registered and/or confiscated. What then? Will robberies cease? Murders? Rapes? Of course not. Humans are ceaselessly inventive when it comes to hurting each other. So what will be banned next? Knives? Bows and arrows? Sharp sticks? And let's consider standard household chemicals. Go out on the Internet and you can find a variety of lethal ways to mix household chemicals together so that even in their raw form, they can be used as a weapon.
Third, any time that gun-control laws have been relaxed, opponents go into hysterics, predicting a return to the Wild West. This of course, is emotional oversimplification, attributing an elitist assumption that all gun owners are drunken brutes ready to draw at the slightest provocation. But these "bullet festivals" never happen.
Fourth, any time a gun-grabber says that less guns makes for a more peaceful world, I respond, "Fine. Please put this sign in your front window that says, 'We;re proud that this is a gun-free household.'" Not surprisingly, my offer is never taken seriously.
So, in summary, it makes simple common sense to enforce the laws already on the books. By itself, a gun is an inanimate object; just like a car, axe, ice-pick, swiss-army knife, or bottle of bleach. But prosecute the individual that uses any of these items as a weapon. "Prosecuting" the item or the manufacturer of the item is absurd; it demonstrates the Gun Grabber's lack of a coherent and reasoned argument and avoids the glaringly obvious truth. The individual is ultimately responsible for the deed, not the item in his or her hand...
Good day...
Ditto your reasons.
I just bought a .45 ACP, a 1927 model based on the 1911, made for the Argentine Army on a Colt contract back in, I think, the 1930's. It works just fine.
I once had three of those Argentine .45's. They are good guns. I still haven't owned a Ballester Molina tho.
Yeah, I'm real pleased with mine.
Guys seriously, get a clue have you never used a messenger service and used abbreviations. This post is meant to be informal and I was treating it as such. My IQ is 129, and I know how to use the 133t video game language while you sit in the dark so either learn the language or BACK OFF.
(note: this is not meant to be hostile but just explain why some of the spelling have been off)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.