Jason Moyer on 9/8/2022 at 03:06
Quote Posted by mxleader
Maybe they didn't envision the AK but they did envision having to deal with tyrannical governments. You have to remember that the modern US government is not by the people for the people but bought by the corporation for the corporation.
Ironically, the most influential of those corporations are gun manufacturers.
Cipheron on 10/8/2022 at 09:11
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Ironically, the most influential of those corporations are gun manufacturers.
And the main outcome of lax gun laws is unaccountable cops increasingly armed up like 40K Space Marines, and ever more draconian laws, extra-judicial killings justified because the cops couldn't be sure what you're packing. Look at the number of summary executions carried out by cops in the USA vs places where gun laws are stricter. It's just not enforcing freedom, it's enforcing fear and justifying a police state.
And the "freedom" answer to the security issue an mass shootings is to put metal detectors and armed guards everywhere. Basically lock everything down with armed checkpoints, also suggestions that everyone needs to buy and wear bulletproof underwear, have bulletproof blankets in classrooms with constant murder-nazi drills of what to do if nutters try and murder you. Yeah maybe if no other nation existed you could claim that's the best you can do in the "best" country on the planet, but since other countries exist you can actually check if that's true or not.
mxleader on 12/8/2022 at 03:19
People driving cars kill other people. Like nurses getting drunk and killing six people. I have not heard one thing about banning alcohol or cars. In fact the amount of trauma and death caused by people freely buying cars and consuming alcohol invalidates any argument for banning AR-15 defense weapons. The numbers are not in favor of keeping cars or alcohol on the market.
Tocky on 12/8/2022 at 03:35
Quote Posted by mxleader
People driving cars kill other people. Like nurses getting drunk and killing six people. I have not heard one thing about banning alcohol or cars. In fact the amount of trauma and death caused by people freely buying cars and consuming alcohol invalidates any argument for banning AR-15 defense weapons. The numbers are not in favor of keeping cars or alcohol on the market.
When they make cars or alcohol with the ability and intent to kill the most people the most quickly you may have a point. Instead they make cars as safe as possible and do not allow corn liquor strained through radiators.
I've been looking for an excuse to post this somewhere-
[video=youtube_share;0ma_HqR4_go]https://youtu.be/0ma_HqR4_go[/video]
Here is one that shows said motherfucker-
[video=youtube_share;xM1zM1nd5Pw]https://youtu.be/xM1zM1nd5Pw[/video]
mxleader on 12/8/2022 at 04:17
All cars that run have the ability to do harm quickly. Also, car usage is a privilege not a right. Using Beto (Come out of the woodwork whenever there's a tragedy) O'Rourke videos is not a good counter argument. Your argument is invalid.
Pyrian on 12/8/2022 at 04:41
Soooooo... You'd be okay with regulating guns like we do cars and drivers, then? :rolleyes:
Tocky on 12/8/2022 at 05:45
Quote Posted by mxleader
All cars that run have the ability to do harm quickly. Also, car usage is a privilege not a right. Using Beto (Come out of the woodwork whenever there's a tragedy) O'Rourke videos is not a good counter argument. Your argument is invalid.
The point you missed was that they don't manufacture them for that purpose. They try to make them kill as few as possible, even having speed limits and tests before they get to go on the road. They did not have cars back when they made guns a right and even then only for the sake of establishing militias. We've gone over and over this before. And no, my argument is not invalid.
And LOL I wasn't using Beto for this argument. He did say some accurate things though. And some total ass laughed and got exactly what was coming to him. Nothing Beto said was wrong. Personally I'm glad he comes out of the woodwork to speak truth. Abbott sure as hell doesn't.
Cipheron on 12/8/2022 at 09:59
Quote Posted by mxleader
All cars that run have the ability to do harm quickly. Also, car usage is a privilege not a right. Using Beto (Come out of the woodwork whenever there's a tragedy) O'Rourke videos is not a good counter argument. Your argument is invalid.
If you want to make the gun/cars analogy, as Pyrian suggested, then you should support universal licensing to carry guns, the same as a driver's test. There should be written and practical components, showing knowledge of gun laws, and also gun safety / handling, and that you're fit and trained to wield the weapon.
Along with that, cars also require registration. So if we're saying to treat guns and cars equitably, you'd be required to register all weapons, but also to present them for periodic inspections (perhaps every two years) to demonstrate that they're in good working order and not a risk to safety.
Clearly, that's actually the sensible middle-position between guns being completely illegal and guns being a free-for-all. The same as it is with cars.
Starker on 12/8/2022 at 12:21
Quote Posted by mxleader
People driving cars kill other people. Like nurses getting drunk and killing six people. I have not heard one thing about banning alcohol or cars. In fact the amount of trauma and death caused by people freely buying cars and consuming alcohol invalidates any argument for banning AR-15 defense weapons. The numbers are not in favor of keeping cars or alcohol on the market.
And nobody is talking about banning guns either whereas there is far more car control in the US than there is gun control. There are a ton of regulations to make driving cars safer, whereas you are allowed to legally sell guns that are dangerous to use, even going off while holstered: (
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-28/how-defective-guns-became-the-only-product-that-can-t-be-recalled)
If car manufacturers were selling cars that exploded and killed its users every now and then, you bet your ass there would be some government action against it.
mxleader on 13/8/2022 at 02:28
Quote Posted by Cipheron
If you want to make the gun/cars analogy, as Pyrian suggested, then you should support universal licensing to carry guns, the same as a driver's test. There should be written and practical components, showing knowledge of gun laws, and also gun safety / handling, and that you're fit and trained to wield the weapon.
Along with that, cars also require registration. So if we're saying to treat guns and cars equitably, you'd be required to register all weapons, but also to present them for periodic inspections (perhaps every two years) to demonstrate that they're in good working order and not a risk to safety.
Clearly, that's actually the sensible middle-position between guns being completely illegal and guns being a free-for-all. The same as it is with cars.
Maybe the car/gun analogy isn't the greatest because cars are not a right outlined in the Constitution. The gun argument will rage on because of the ambiguity of the second amendment. We could meet in the middle if we also consider licensing and regulating 'free speech.' I would be totally for training, licensing and censoring speech in all forms. I'm not arguing that further damage to the 2nd amendment would probably cause damage to the 1st amendment but merely proposing a trade. Thoughts?
