Assault vehicles

You've already made all of the points against your own failed thread, Derpy.
 
which argument do you wish to go with?

Is there much difference between the two?

It's rare that ordinary civilians have a practical use for a firearm on any given day. If you disagree with that you're simply being difficult.

yes there is. one is essentially universal, the other tailored to a certain class.

i don't mean to be difficult and apologize that my questions or points cause you difficulty.

they have, for the most part, the same practical use as the military or police. self defense.
 
which argument do you wish to go with?

Is there much difference between the two?

It's rare that ordinary civilians have a practical use for a firearm on any given day. If you disagree with that you're simply being difficult.

yes there is. one is essentially universal, the other tailored to a certain class.

i don't mean to be difficult and apologize that my questions or points cause you difficulty.

they have, for the most part, the same practical use as the military or police. self defense.

Why would you belittle dangers the Military and police face everyday by comparing it to the environment of the people they're obligated to protect?

Your argument is ridiculous.
 
Is there much difference between the two?

It's rare that ordinary civilians have a practical use for a firearm on any given day. If you disagree with that you're simply being difficult.

yes there is. one is essentially universal, the other tailored to a certain class.

i don't mean to be difficult and apologize that my questions or points cause you difficulty.

they have, for the most part, the same practical use as the military or police. self defense.

Why would you belittle dangers the Military and police face everyday by comparing it to the environment of the people they're obligated to protect?

Your argument is ridiculous.

you have a point about the military, but not about the police. police face the dangers you and i do. they are civilian by the way. they are not military.

like i said earlier, the founders wanted the citizens to have a right to bear arms and this right stemmed from the belief that citizens should not cower to a government that bears the only arms.
 
personal-responsibility-vik-battaile-politics-1356049664.jpg


All is fair, if you own a high performance muscle car you should be banned from buying any type of alcohol, and if you are on medication you should be restricted from operating it until after you come off your medication.

Yes this is kind of silly calling a car that goes faster than the law allows and has killed thousands of people yearly an Assault vehicle. Just like it's silly of the anti gun nutters to call an civilian semi automatic firearm an assault weapon.
 
yes there is. one is essentially universal, the other tailored to a certain class.

i don't mean to be difficult and apologize that my questions or points cause you difficulty.

they have, for the most part, the same practical use as the military or police. self defense.

Why would you belittle dangers the Military and police face everyday by comparing it to the environment of the people they're obligated to protect?

Your argument is ridiculous.

you have a point about the military, but not about the police. police face the dangers you and i do. they are civilian by the way. they are not military.

like i said earlier, the founders wanted the citizens to have a right to bear arms and this right stemmed from the belief that citizens should not cower to a government that bears the only arms.

Police face the dangers we would otherwise have to face. That's not to say we don't also face them at times, but it's not a close comparison.

I partially agree with your sentiments on the intentions of the 2nd amendment, but I also believe part of the intentions behind it involved defense from foreign oppressors. Localized militias were pretty important back then.
 
personal-responsibility-vik-battaile-politics-1356049664.jpg


All is fair, if you own a high performance muscle car you should be banned from buying any type of alcohol, and if you are on medication you should be restricted from operating it until after you come off your medication.

Yes this is kind of silly calling a car that goes faster than the law allows and has killed thousands of people yearly an Assault vehicle. Just like it's silly of the anti gun nutters to call an civilian semi automatic firearm an assault weapon.

It's just a stupid attempt at comparing the two.

You can easily kill someone with a car going 10 MPH if you hit them right.
 
Why would you belittle dangers the Military and police face everyday by comparing it to the environment of the people they're obligated to protect?

Your argument is ridiculous.

you have a point about the military, but not about the police. police face the dangers you and i do. they are civilian by the way. they are not military.

like i said earlier, the founders wanted the citizens to have a right to bear arms and this right stemmed from the belief that citizens should not cower to a government that bears the only arms.

Police face the dangers we would otherwise have to face. That's not to say we don't also face them at times, but it's not a close comparison.

I partially agree with your sentiments on the intentions of the 2nd amendment, but I also believe part of the intentions behind it involved defense from foreign oppressors. Localized militias were pretty important back then.

local militias were important and in my opinion, still are important. i don't own a gun, i have shot rifles and pistols, and never hunted with a gun. well, if you include spear gun hunting on fish....i digress. that said, i believe scotus got it right in heller when it comes to the right applying to all of us, not just the military or police.
 
personal-responsibility-vik-battaile-politics-1356049664.jpg


All is fair, if you own a high performance muscle car you should be banned from buying any type of alcohol, and if you are on medication you should be restricted from operating it until after you come off your medication.

Yes this is kind of silly calling a car that goes faster than the law allows and has killed thousands of people yearly an Assault vehicle. Just like it's silly of the anti gun nutters to call an civilian semi automatic firearm an assault weapon.

It's just a stupid attempt at comparing the two.

You can easily kill someone with a car going 10 MPH if you hit them right.

And here's the point of banning and restricting from certain people access to these type of assault vehicles

if you own a high performance muscle car you should be banned from buying any type of alcohol, and if you are on medication you should be restricted from operating it until after you come off your medication.
 
personal-responsibility-vik-battaile-politics-1356049664.jpg


All is fair, if you own a high performance muscle car you should be banned from buying any type of alcohol, and if you are on medication you should be restricted from operating it until after you come off your medication.

Yes this is kind of silly calling a car that goes faster than the law allows and has killed thousands of people yearly an Assault vehicle. Just like it's silly of the anti gun nutters to call an civilian semi automatic firearm an assault weapon.

It's just a stupid attempt at comparing the two.

You can easily kill someone with a car going 10 MPH if you hit them right.

And here's the point of banning and restricting from certain people access to these type of assault vehicles

if you own a high performance muscle car you should be banned from buying any type of alcohol, and if you are on medication you should be restricted from operating it until after you come off your medication.

Why should you be banned from purchasing alcohol? It's already illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence.

Same goes for operating a motor vehicle while on medication that warns you on the bottle not to operate heavy machinery.
 

Forum List

Back
Top