Question for gun control advocates

Muscle cars aren't built to kill people. That shouldn't baffle you unless you're dumb.

 

Murders using guns? Those aren't murders due to drug use certainly, more like drug trafficking. If you bought mar1juana at Walgreens who would get murdered over it any more than anything else?

 

they kill more teenagers than assault rifles so I assume you don't care about outcomes or capability, only what the designer had in mind. Interesting (baffling) logic you have.

 

Ridiculous that anyone wants to compare rifles and cars. I don't understand your love of guns. Is having a pistol, hunting rifles, and shotguns not enough?

 

I don't love guns nor do I own any. I don't understand your need to broadcast yourself naked on the internet. Your lack of understanding isn't relevant to the rights of Americans.

 

I'm not sure who's rights are being violated.

 

I assumed you wanted to restrict everything but " having a pistol, hunting rifles, and shotguns"

 

yeah but come on man

guns kill people because theyre made to shoot things like people

cars are for transportation, it just happens that alot of people like to drink and drive or text and drive and get into accidents.

 

As far as guns? Pretty much.

 

I specifically mentioned hard drugs.

Meth and coke is a totally different ball game than mar1juana.

 

Before we get into this:
I didn't bring up this argument, I am just shooting down CometsWin illogical points. I don't justify gun pwnership by them being safer than cars. Automobile deaths in this country is a tragic failure and comparison to it doesn't justify anything.



Cars are for transportation but we don't "need" them for transportation, they aren't the only form, and are the most dangerous form.

Your last comment could be attacked two ways:

1. excluding drunks and texters, cars still account for more accidental deaths.

2. "Guns are for protection and sport, it just so happens psychos use them to shoot innocent people"

So you still think you question about rights is relevant?

 

What right is being violated?

 

Under your law someone who previously had the right to own a certain gun, would no longer have that right. Your question can't be this basic so perhaps I am missing something.

 

Your point? What right does passing a law to restrict gun ownership violate?

 

The right to own that gun. What are you talking about ?

 

So to you, losing a right equals violating your rights?

 

Is that what you have been after this entire time? Outline your thought process, it seems you are making some really weird meaningless points

 

I'm pretty sure you understand, and you just want to ignore it. I don't know why I expect a reasonable response from you in a gun thread.

 

That's weak. I bring nothing but logic to gun threads. I do make fun of people, but don't feel I EVER make unreasonable arguments. In fact my arguments in gun threads are the most reasonable because they are based on superior knowledge.

To me it seems (wish you would clarify) you are saying one of two things:

1. Legal - That the right was removed legally and thus not "violated". If you were making this point, it seems weird and meaninglessly semantic. Removed vs. violated doesn't make much difference to the guy who no longer has the right, and is now possibly a criminal. The counter is the law violates the 2nd amendment, which I assume you didn't suggest changing, and would end in nothing but an opinion of if a hypothetical law conflicts with the constitution.

2. Moral - the the removal of the right violates a basic right no system of governing should remove. If making this argument, your questioning the difference between removal and violation of the right seems irrelevant.

 

everybody has a car. so obviously theres going to be more accidents and deaths.