discuss.
I concede, cartoon guns don't kill cartoon people. You win.
what about real guns?
Guns provide an easy way for people to kill people.
obviously it was meant to mock, but the cartoon makes a good point: guns are completely powerless unless there is a human with ill-intent pulling the trigger.
which then yields the question: is the problem a society that produces people crazy enough to mass murder kids, or is an inanimate object to blame?
of course, for the left, the answer is obvious: the inanimate object is at fault!! because inanimate objects move and pull triggers themselves. that's what "inanimate" means!
*facepalm*
If you think that people are always going to be rational w/ guns, you are delusional. You can self-righteously proclaim that the gun problem in the US is a moral failing, but that doesn't help the 30k people/year who are dead and will die.
Suppose Dems were pro gun:
http://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/2013/04/image_by_richard_terrell_of_164.html
Others:
http://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/2013/04/image_by_the_looking_spoon_28.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/2013/04/image_by_the_looking_spoon_29.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/2013/04/msm_epic_fail.html
troofiness wrote:
You can self-righteously proclaim that the gun problem in the US is a moral failing, but that doesn't help the 30k people/year who are dead and will die.
ah..there is the problem. You use the phrase "that the gun problem in the US."
there is no gun problem. There is a people problem. I'm not necessarily saying it is a moral failing on any level...but something is profoundly different about american society than others.
It takes a crazy, demented human being to pick up an otherwise harmless inanimate object and mass murder people with it. Why does american society produce more people who are willing/eager to do so than any other society?
troofiness wrote:
If you think that people are always going to be rational w/ guns, you are delusional. You can self-righteously proclaim that the gun problem in the US is a moral failing, but that doesn't help the 30k people/year who are dead and will die.
Ah, liberals, you don't follow the law when it concerns drug use, employing illegals, paying taxes, not paying people for sex, etc, and then you turn around and push making it illegal to own guns. Come on, we all know you just want Democrats to own firearms, because only conservatives follow laws, making it much safer to break into our houses and steal our stuff when you think we're off working our jobs to pay your welfare checks. You're not fooling us.
The next time you think about posting a clever comic or folksy saying against gun control, replace the gun with a nuclear bomb. If the post still works, then come up with a better argument against gun control or argue for all weapons to be legalized. Thanks.
rtertre wrote:
Guns provide an easy way for people to kill people.
Easy, quick, effective and highly scalable. Fu\ck yeah! Isn't it nice when technology comes up with solutions to life's problems? The problem being that killing without guns is just too damn hard.
Advice wrote:
The next time you think about posting a clever comic or folksy saying against gun control, replace the gun with a nuclear bomb. If the post still works, then come up with a better argument against gun control or argue for all weapons to be legalized. Thanks.
Hey, next time you argue for homosexual marriage, be honest and argue for the legalization of all types of marriage and sex (incestous, polygamous, pedophile, and beastiality). Thanks.
reading 101 wrote:
ah..there is the problem. You use the phrase "that the gun problem in the US."
there is no gun problem. There is a people problem. I'm not necessarily saying it is a moral failing on any level...but something is profoundly different about american society than others.
It takes a crazy, demented human being to pick up an otherwise harmless inanimate object and mass murder people with it. Why does american society produce more people who are willing/eager to do so than any other society?
the solution? take away the guns...
Cartoons wrote:
Advice wrote:The next time you think about posting a clever comic or folksy saying against gun control, replace the gun with a nuclear bomb. If the post still works, then come up with a better argument against gun control or argue for all weapons to be legalized. Thanks.
Hey, next time you argue for homosexual marriage, be honest and argue for the legalization of all types of marriage and sex (incestous, polygamous, pedophile, and beastiality). Thanks.
I did not say it is invalid to argue against gun control. I simply suggested that you stop doing so using illogical arguments, or alternatively, follow your arguments to their logical conclusions and endorse a fully armed population.
"ah..there is the problem. You use the phrase "that the SANDWICH problem in the US."
there is no SANDWICH problem. There is a people problem. I'm not necessarily saying it is a moral failing on any level...but something is profoundly different about american society than others.
It takes a crazy, demented human being to pick up an otherwise harmless inanimate object and EAT THAT DELICIOUS SANDWICH. Why does american society produce more people who are willing/eager to do so than any other society?"
See what I did there? You sir are crazy and I hate that I am associated with people like you. The fault in your logic is that while yes the gun is inanimate, so is a sandwich. But what is a sandwich's sole purpose? To get eaten. What is a gun's sole purpose? Causing harm. That is its inherent use and there in NO denying it.
Now why couldn't you have just been funny and clever like Cartoons and tear up some Libs argument instead of sounding like a deranged gun nut?
Now as for WHY libs kinda suck? All those crazies who are out there whom you claim will be hampered by an increase in gun control. Well guns or not these people still exist. Now would you please tell me WHY on earth I am not entitled to have the best technology available to me to defend my family if and when (and i'm well aware God willing that I will never encounter it) one of these crazies tried to harm them? I say no screw you, I know what I am. I am responsible and law abiding citizen and I DESERVE the right to protect myself.
Advice wrote:
Hey, next time you argue for homosexual marriage, be honest and argue for the legalization of all types of marriage and sex (incestous, polygamous, pedophile, and beastiality). Thanks.
Incestuous: Not an issue to me to be honest when both are consenting adults. I think it's dangerous to have offspring in that regard (though not as risky as the general public believes). I don't do it myself but if some red state hillbilly wants to partake it doesn't affect my life whatsoever.
Polygamous: Genuinely don't give an F. Again, not for me. But I seriously don't care if anyone else does it.
Pedophilia: Now you're dealing with an adult and a minor (who isn't capable of consenting, legally or morally). This is a different issue having to do with the mental capacity gap between the two parties. Not a situation any right-minded person would argue for.
Bestiality: See response to pedophilia.
--
Do you gun nuts honestly apply gun laws to incest/polygamy and consider them in the same regard you do about pedophilia/bestiality? I'm so sorry you don't have any sort of reasoning skills. It must be hard not possessing any skills regarding to logic.
a tornado just killed a bunch of people in oklahoma. should we ban tornados now?
rtertre wrote:
Guns provide an easy way for people to kill people.
Guns provide an easy way for women to protect themselves too...and the elderly, and even men....
In D.C., no good deed goes unpunished. And conversely, evil deeds are routinely rewarded. They don’t call it the District of Corruption for nothing.
A 39-year-old man was facing jail time and a hefty fine on several counts of gun charges after he saved a neighborhood kid’s life by shooting at a few unleashed pit bulls that attacked the boy. Considering that he saved an 11-year-old boy’s life, prosecutors were merciful to him and decided not to get him on criminal gun charges. They instead opted to only charge him a $1,000 fine for being in possession of unregistered guns. The Washington Times recounted what happened:
“The horrific incident that spawned the investigation occurred on a Sunday afternoon in late January as 11-year-old Jayeon Simon and his friend rode bicycles near Eighth and Sheridan streets Northwest in the Brightwood neighborhood. According to court records filed in D.C. Superior Court, three unleashed pit bulls pounced on Jayeon and attacked him. Seeing the attack, Mr. Srigley went inside his home to get his Ruger 9 mm pistol while several other men hopped over fences to get away from the dogs, court records state. From behind the wooden fence of his front lawn, Mr. Srigley began firing at the dogs. His shots attracted the attention of a Metropolitan Police Department officer on bicycle patrol nearby, and he also opened fire on the dogs, killing the other two.”
So, if the man didn’t have any gun at all, the boy might not have survived the attack. The policeman only came over after he heard shots, so he may have not come over at all if Srigley didn’t have a gun to shoot.
Thankfully, the boy survived, but he endured injuries that will result in several scars over his body, and the boy’s family credits Mr. Srigley for saving his life.
Even though prosecutors acknowledge his good deed, “the [Unconstitutional] law’s the law [even though it is invalid and evil, we are loyal to our liberal Democratic masters rather than the governing document of America and its founding principles].”
