Why do democrats support assault VEHICLES??

ShootSpeeders

Gold Member
May 13, 2012
20,232
2,363
280
They love to ask what legitimate purpose is served by assault rifles but same can be asked of cars that do 200 mph or 150 or 100. Why do we let people have cars DESIGNED to go way over the legal speed limit?
 
I can never understand what the fuck you're talking about when you make these threads.

Are you claiming that the Republican party supports banning cars that can go faster than the speed limit (every single car in the world)?

Where do "Democrats" come into play here?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
I can never understand what the fuck you're talking about when you make these threads.

Oh you understand what i'm saying perfectly. You just don't have a rebuttal. You oppose gun homicide but think it's cool to drive 150 mph and couldn't care less how many kids you run over.
 
I can never understand what the fuck you're talking about when you make these threads.

Oh you understand what i'm saying perfectly. You just don't have a rebuttal. You oppose gun homicide but think it's cool to drive 150 mph and couldn't care less how many kids you run over.

Are you in favor of gun homicide?

I repeat, I have no idea what you're talking about here. I don't even drive.
 
They love to ask what legitimate purpose is served by assault rifles but same can be asked of cars that do 200 mph or 150 or 100. Why do we let people have cars DESIGNED to go way over the legal speed limit?

STFU.

Seriously. You piss me off, and you piss everyone else off. Its no wonder no one likes you.
 
It's actually a valid point...

I get what he is saying - there is no point having a car that has a maximum speed of 240kmph when the maximum legal limit is 120kmph.

You could lower the speedo to make all cars travel no faster than the maximum legal limit allowed, but that could mean the car itself loses power - especially when driving up a steep hill.
 
You could lower the speedo to make all cars travel no faster than the maximum legal limit allowed, but that could mean the car itself loses power - especially when driving up a steep hill.

That's not true at all. Cars could easily be made with the same acceleration they have now but a much lower top speed.
 
Even cars driven at legal speeds of 55mph will kill. But the car's main purpose is a mode of transportation.

Of course cars can kill at 55mph. Driving a car will always be risky but we can greatly reduce the risk by measures like lowering speed limits. But liberals say hell with it.
 
They love to ask what legitimate purpose is served by assault rifles but same can be asked of cars that do 200 mph or 150 or 100. Why do we let people have cars DESIGNED to go way over the legal speed limit?

shut the fuck up donnie
 
I'm not one that believes that all guns should be banned but I must say, enough of these idiotic comparisons between guns and cars/fertilizer/knives. Cars are used as a mode of transportation. Fertilizer is used to aid the growth of plants. Knives are used to cut food and other objects. What other use do guns have besides killing/maiming?
 
i'm not one that believes that all guns should be banned but i must say, enough of these idiotic comparisons between guns and cars/fertilizer/knives. Cars are used as a mode of transportation. Fertilizer is used to aid the growth of plants. Knives are used to cut food and other objects. What other use do guns have besides killing/maiming?


protection
 
It's actually a valid point...

I get what he is saying - there is no point having a car that has a maximum speed of 240kmph when the maximum legal limit is 120kmph.

You could lower the speedo to make all cars travel no faster than the maximum legal limit allowed, but that could mean the car itself loses power - especially when driving up a steep hill.

I'm not sure you understand gear ratios and the like. Hills require torgue and low gear ratios; speed requires high gear ratios and rpms.
 
I'm not one that believes that all guns should be banned but I must say, enough of these idiotic comparisons between guns and cars/fertilizer/knives. Cars are used as a mode of transportation. Fertilizer is used to aid the growth of plants. Knives are used to cut food and other objects. What other use do guns have besides killing/maiming?

Stopping people from killing/maiming, as well as sport-shooting and hunting. And buck knives and ka-bars aren't designed for food prep- they're designed for killing.
 
I guess you could say I own an assault vehicle as I've replaced the OEM turbo with a larger one for increased acceleration and gas consumption, but I've yet to hit anyone or even get a speeding ticket because I pick and choose when and where to really goose it. Oh, and I'm also guilty of some computer chip mischief that enhances horsepower, etc.
 
I'm not one that believes that all guns should be banned but I must say, enough of these idiotic comparisons between guns and cars/fertilizer/knives. Cars are used as a mode of transportation. Fertilizer is used to aid the growth of plants. Knives are used to cut food and other objects. What other use do guns have besides killing/maiming?

You don't like the comparisons because you have no rebuttal. Even you liberals can see the hypocrisy of criticizing gun homicide but happily accepting the much more common problem of vehicle homicide.
 
I guess you could say I own an assault vehicle as I've replaced the OEM turbo with a larger one for increased acceleration and gas consumption, but I've yet to hit anyone

You will eventually and like all liberals you'll say " Hey dood, sorry i killed your kid but i wasn't actually trying to kill him so we're gonna call it an accident and forget it."
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top