My guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car

[Nik]

For the last time nik, no I don't think you should be able to keep an active nuke in your yard or anywhere, they're far far too dangerous and a national security risk. They're at least 1000 times more dangerous than any assault rifle you care to name (hence the ice cream vs. rat meat comparison), it's like comparing a knife to several tanks.

So there were 680 accidental gun deaths in 2006.

How many people need to die before its a problem that needs correcting? This isn't ice cream.

 

[Father Time]

For the last time nik, no I don't think you should be able to keep an active nuke in your yard or anywhere, they're far far too dangerous and a national security risk. They're at least 1000 times more dangerous than any assault rifle you care to name (hence the ice cream vs. rat meat comparison), it's like comparing a knife to several tanks.

So there were 680 accidental gun deaths in 2006.

How many people need to die before its a problem that needs correcting? This isn't ice cream.

It's unfair to take away guns from everyone just because some people can't handle their guns responsibly.

It's not that hard to own and use an assault rifle without hurting someone.

Also in that same year 13,470 people died from drunk driving accidents but I doubt you'd be willing to ban alcohol

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/spotlite/3d.htm

And this brings us back to Ted Kennedy, I guess.

 

[Nik]

For the last time nik, no I don't think you should be able to keep an active nuke in your yard or anywhere, they're far far too dangerous and a national security risk. They're at least 1000 times more dangerous than any assault rifle you care to name (hence the ice cream vs. rat meat comparison), it's like comparing a knife to several tanks.

So there were 680 accidental gun deaths in 2006.

How many people need to die before its a problem that needs correcting? This isn't ice cream.

It's unfair to take away guns from everyone just because some people can't handle their guns responsibly.

It's not that hard to own and use an assault rifle without hurting someone.

Also in that same year 13,470 people died from drunk driving accidents but I doubt you'd be willing to ban alcohol

National Drunk and Drugged Driving Preention

And this brings us back to Ted Kennedy, I guess.

I'm willing to regulate the hell out of it, and tax it 3x more than it is now, and use that money for public transport. But thats another issue entirely.

How is it fair it to the innocent people who get killed so that you can have a gun?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Just wondering if you have any facts to back up that irrelevant statement.

do you typically wait a long time for responses to posts like this?

do you?

Long time? Do you typically think everyone reads your rants just as soon as you post them?

Do you consider yourself excused from backing up your statements if they are over a day old?

I have a challenge for you Anguille.....show us where a gun, without any input from a human being, killed someone.

A link to the story is required.

If you cant then....well....you look silly saying what you said to JenT

 

[Diuretic]

The "protection from government" argument against gun control is pretty weak. Even 300 million people armed to the teeth with ordinarily domestic available weapons won't be able to withstand the largest, best equipped military the world has ever seen. If the US government wished to become a dictatorship then it doesn't matter what weapons an individual citizen possesses, they won't stand a chance against the US military. So, really, punt that one out as being a relevant argument in the debate, it's so fanciful it borders on the ridiculous.

Sure they would. Look how troublesome a few pockets of the world are with a committed few with crappy weapons are...

Americans when motivated are nothing to be trifled with. And good luck getting our military to attack Americans.

Those troublesome pockets are being occupied and part of the occupation role is to win over the population (not insurgents, they simply have to be fought) so there is no chance of total war, only limited war and the fact of occupation and its attendant political and legal considerations has to be borne in mind. Such considerations may not apply in a domestic insurgency.

Getting anyone's military to attack their own citizens is problematic and in a democracy even more so. Your military, as I understand it, is sworn to protect the US Constitution. If the US Constitution was under threat from domestic insurgents I would imagine the military would meet that threat as it would if it were a foreign threat.

 

[Diuretic]

The "protection from government" argument against gun control is pretty weak. Even 300 million people armed to the teeth with ordinarily domestic available weapons won't be able to withstand the largest, best equipped military the world has ever seen. If the US government wished to become a dictatorship then it doesn't matter what weapons an individual citizen possesses, they won't stand a chance against the US military. So, really, punt that one out as being a relevant argument in the debate, it's so fanciful it borders on the ridiculous.

That assumes that
A. Every servicemen would have no problem fighting the rebellion. If a mass scale revolt happened then it seems unlikely that no soldier would be sympathetic to the cause.
B. We get no foreign aids. We had a very lucrative alliance with the French during the revolution, it's very possible that we can get similar help in modern times.

And speaking about assumptions -

 

[SW2SILVER]

Kennedy's car didn't kill anyone, either. Ted has operating the thing. And, the victim drowned, so don't go gaga here. We can point out how many needless deaths from drowning there are, and blame the water. We can blame Alcohol, because Tedd was probably drunk. We can blame the design of the road, because Teddy shouldn't have driven off had it been properly designed. We can split hairs all night and avoid the obvious. That is what gun supporters do best, avoiding the obvious conclusion, and focusing on everything else as the problem. Why is it this topic always breaks down to a cyclical argument about how guns "protect", usually from other people with guns. It's to bad, but human nature being as it is, banning guns makes perfect sense. If we lived in a perfect world, we could have all the guns we wanted. If your guns don't kill, then they must be replicas, 'cause the real ones sure as hell DO kill.

 

[JenT]

In fact, 99.9% of all guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car.

Rosie O'Donnel wants gun control, yet she has armed body guards.

We have the right to defend ourselves. Law abiding citizens should be able to CARRY guns.

Gun free school zones are making our schools target rich (pssssp, psychos with guns have figured this out)

If you take away guns from the law abiding citizens then only the criminals will have them.

Are all volunteer victims signing up to be libs?

It seems the only life that is valuable to libs are the lives of the murderers that would kill them.

"BUT I DON'T WANT TO DEFEND MYSELF . . . " - BRADY LAW SUPPORTER

A GOVERNMENT CANNOT OPPRESS AN ARMED AND UNWILLING CITIZENRY.

A GOVERNMENT THAT IGNORES THE 2ND AMENDMENT CAN IGNORE ANY LAW.

"NOBODY NEEDS A GUN LIKE THAT!" HE SAID, SURROUNDED BY BODY GUARDS.

AMAZING FACT: THE FEDERAL GOV'T IS EXEMPT FROM MOST LAWS THEY PASS.

"NOTHING WILL PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT DOWNRIGHT FORCE." --- P. HENRY

"NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS" - JEFFERSON

"A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ARMED." --- GEORGE WASHINGTON

WHEN ONLY COPS AND THE MILITARY HAVE GUNS, IT'S A POLICE STATE

"ARMED WOMEN = POLITE MEN." --- CHARLES CURLEY

BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6

BATF = BASICALLY, ANOTHER TRUCKLOAD OF FASCISTS.

ALL THE GUN CONTROL WE NEED WAS ENACTED IN 1791!

POLICE STATE IS GREAT, SO LONG AS YOU'RE THE POLICE.

A NEED FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT A CALL FOR GUN CONTROL.

Kennedy's a f-ing doooosh. If any of us "common folk" had done what he did, we'd STILL be in prison. Exactly where that POS needs to be.

The spineless POS didn't even have the balls to die. He let a woman do it for him.

Sitting in a car after an evening with Teddie, she may have volunteered.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

OH SNAP that was a funny post right there

 

[Nevadamedic]

Holy shit! Jen T! Don't you know that guns KILL people?

So does Ted Kennedy, well the correct term is murder in Kennedy's case...................

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Holy shit! Jen T! Don't you know that guns KILL people?

I call shenanagins unless someone shows me a video with a gun killing someone all by itself.

 

[Father Time]

Holy shit! Jen T! Don't you know that guns KILL people?

I call shenanagins unless someone shows me a video with a gun killing someone all by itself.

Well there have been incidences of someone mishandling a gun and it firing by itself without anyone pulling the trigger. They're rare though.

 

[JenT]

Holy shit! Jen T! Don't you know that guns KILL people?

I call shenanagins unless someone shows me a video with a gun killing someone all by itself.

Well there have been incidences of someone mishandling a gun and it firing by itself without anyone pulling the trigger. They're rare though.

yeah, that's what happened when I shot that guy...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Holy shit! Jen T! Don't you know that guns KILL people?

I call shenanagins unless someone shows me a video with a gun killing someone all by itself.

Well there have been incidences of someone mishandling a gun and it firing by itself without anyone pulling the trigger. They're rare though.

TPIWWOL
TPIWWOP
TPIWWOV

What the hell did i just say?

Link?
Pic?
Video?

 

[Father Time]

Well here's some

[youtube]JJCUglNpFTU[/youtube]

 

[JenT]

lololololol see?

Democrats shouldn't wait til they're grown up before they take their first shot.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well here's some

[youtube]JJCUglNpFTU[/youtube]

that was hillarious .

But each one involved people interacting with the guns .

 

[Father Time]

Well here's some

[youtube]JJCUglNpFTU[/youtube]

that was hillarious .

But each one involved people interacting with the guns .

Well yeah but some of them still fired without someone pulling the trigger.

 

[JenT]

Well yeah but some of them still fired without someone pulling the trigger.

I think you mean on purpose?

With a revolver, other things would have had to happen and it doesn't happen by itself, with an automatic, SOMETHING pulled the trigger

 

[Emma]

In fact, 99.9% of all guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car.

Rosie O'Donnel wants gun control, yet she has armed body guards.

We have the right to defend ourselves. Law abiding citizens should be able to CARRY guns.

Gun free school zones are making our schools target rich (pssssp, psychos with guns have figured this out)

If you take away guns from the law abiding citizens then only the criminals will have them.

Are all volunteer victims signing up to be libs?

It seems the only life that is valuable to libs are the lives of the murderers that would kill them.

"BUT I DON'T WANT TO DEFEND MYSELF . . . " - BRADY LAW SUPPORTER

A GOVERNMENT CANNOT OPPRESS AN ARMED AND UNWILLING CITIZENRY.

A GOVERNMENT THAT IGNORES THE 2ND AMENDMENT CAN IGNORE ANY LAW.

"NOBODY NEEDS A GUN LIKE THAT!" HE SAID, SURROUNDED BY BODY GUARDS.

AMAZING FACT: THE FEDERAL GOV'T IS EXEMPT FROM MOST LAWS THEY PASS.

"NOTHING WILL PRESERVE LIBERTY BUT DOWNRIGHT FORCE." --- P. HENRY

"NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS" - JEFFERSON

"A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ARMED." --- GEORGE WASHINGTON

WHEN ONLY COPS AND THE MILITARY HAVE GUNS, IT'S A POLICE STATE

"ARMED WOMEN = POLITE MEN." --- CHARLES CURLEY

BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6

BATF = BASICALLY, ANOTHER TRUCKLOAD OF FASCISTS.

ALL THE GUN CONTROL WE NEED WAS ENACTED IN 1791!

POLICE STATE IS GREAT, SO LONG AS YOU'RE THE POLICE.

A NEED FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT A CALL FOR GUN CONTROL.

Why all the bumper-sticker crap.