My sister called me Friday said three of her classmates were killed by falling laundry baskets. Luckily one of the students had their own laundry basket and killed the offender before more fatalities occurred.
If all it takes to get on the list is supporting some kind of gun control measure that the NRA opposes, then the vast majority of a Americans, including most members of the NRA, should be on that list (they're just not famous or notable enough to be put on it).
Sure, but you wouldn't get much traction in your efforts. See the laundry basket, while I am sure it could be used to kill someone, wasn't made to kill people. In fact this laundry basket probably has more uses than a gun. Simple one purpose tool for simple people.
so you are saying I have the 'right to be safe from ' (your words) ' things made to kill people'? Do I have the right to be safe from things not 'made to kill people'? Why stop at throwing out the word 'right'? how about: 'American soldiers fight for the freedom to protect the right to be safe from unrestricted guns' . Now we are really nailing those keywords Douchebags. Real people actually sacrificed for real rights. It's not a punchline.
Well my comment answers your first question. You can ban, regulate, or protect yourself and fellow citizens from anything. Is that your "right" I suppose. I am just saying you won't get the traction on everything because it is a waste of time to have background checks for laundry basket safety. I don't see why it has to be my words...tell me in your words, what is the purpose of a gun? People fought for the rights to slaves, but the opposition conquered...sometimes people change their mind on things.
Yes, the right to life is a clearly protected right, and the government attempts to protect this. If there were killer laundry baskets or unsafe laundry baskets, the government could regulate them. Is there something confusing about this principle?
hunting, self-defense, killing Adolf, robbing banks, etc... So you think Rashmon's comment 'the right to be safe from unregistered guns" was referring to "the right to life"? It wasn't. Those aren't equal. I have never said guns can't be regulated. Is there something confusing about that to you?
Then why were you arguing? Gun regulation is the central issue here. If you don't disagree then you should be okay with ridiculing the NRA for its extremist views.
Rashmon brought up 'the right to be safe from unregistered guns' . I have no clue wtf that is so I thought I would ask. Turns out it was just him throwing some keywords around that he didn't understand. Just because I think guns can be regulated doesn't mean I think they should be regulated (especially not all fire arms). I am also 100% sure the right Rashmon brought up doesn't exist.
The right to be safe = the right to life. You can use the two interchangeably. Not that weird for him to phrase it that way.
Right all tasks accomplished how? Oh yes by killing, except in the case of self defense and banks. Self defense you can just injure...and banks the threat of death.
Weird to see the ACLU there. I thought they fought for civil rights, no matter how stupid. I don't think it's a problem that they keep a list. Some may feel threatened by the publishing of the list. But, the list gives NRA members an opportunity to boycott companies that don't agree with them if they wanted. Celebrities could be boycotted too, but it's probably a little unwise to call out individuals by name. If Garfunkel gets murdered now, NRA gets blowback. I think they should have stuck to organizations.
Wrong. Those are not interchangeable. Rights don't come at the expense of other rights. 'the right to be safe from unregistered guns' most certainly would come at the expense of other rights (especially the way Rashmon used it). How can a person even say 'one has the right to be safe'? That makes no sense and/or is terrible English.
