Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because other "inanimate objects" are NOT constitutionally protected rights.Change your name to Unhinged-Joy
Why is it OK for inanimate object to be illegal unless it's a gun? What's the difference? Your OP is a sort of flim-flam strawman, liberals aren't saying that guns are sentient beings, nor is that considered a reason for something to be legal or not. It's simply a bullshit argument.
Next retarded question?
Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Let's up the ante ask for cases in which a Pressure Cooker, a bag of Fertilizer, a Flame Thrower or a Knife willingly and knowingly killed someone!
Or a nuclear bomb.
I just love it when an ignorant moonbat unwittingly and unknowingly proves my point.
Merci beaucoup mon petit moron.
Here is your answer...People kill people, not guns on their own. However give a criminal a massive amount of power, like an automatic weapon or a gun that can fire 50 rounds in less than a minute, then that criminal has the capacity to do much more damage. Do you understand this?I have no problem with that.Grandpa, how do you feel about the restrictions on fully automatic machine guns? Makes sense or should anybody be able to go into Walmart and buy one?
Now that I've answered your questions please respond to the op.
The problem is NOT guns, rather it's PEOPLE, period. A gun does no harm unless a mentally unstable person uses it to inflict harm. The problem is the mentally disturbed, the haters, the vengeful, the fanatics, the extremists, the rogue banner carriers, the suicidal, the losers that need front page headlines, the wannabe martyrs, gangs, criminals, egotistical bullies ( including members of law enforcement ), and racists.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Guns do not kill, but lunatics with guns do kill.
I'll never understand what's so hard to understand about the problem. I do not know why people blame guns. I do not know why people think that we can legislate guns out of the hands of the above mentioned people. People will get their hands on guns whether we have gun restriction laws or not, just plain fact.
Killing another human you mean?Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
FYI - Many things give one cancer, proven fact. Cigarettes get the majority of the blame because no one can prove that they do or don't cause cancer. I have been smoking ( an average of a pack a day ) since I was 17 1/2 years old, and I'll be 69 years old next month, and never had cancer. My brother ( he's a year younger than I am ) has never smoked, yet had esophageal cancer 5 years ago and had 3 inches of his esophagus removed. Many people smoke all of their lives, and never develop cancer. There are many different types of cancer, and no one has proven a case that EVERYONE that smokes, dies of cancer. Cigarettes are an easy target for fanatics to bitch about.I have not heard of this kind of gun.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
Why does this argument only apply to guns?
Cigarettes don't give you cancer, people give you cancer!
It's a dumb argument.
Cancer can be caused by certain chemicals in the air, contaminated food, high levels of toxins in water and household products, and certain pesticides and insecticides. The sun can cause skin cancer.
But, guns are only deadly when crazies and lunatics use them to inflict harm on others. Cigarettes are only deadly when combined with other factors, such as mentioned above. Cancer is still an unknown as far as a definite cause. Speculation concerning cigarettes is NOT rock solid proof of the ill affects being claimed by so many people. Do some research on cancer and see how many causes you'll find. Is it proven that women with breast cancer only get it as a result of cigarette smoking? What would you say about those that smoke all of their lives, die in their 90s, and die from natural causes or causes totally unrelated to cigarette smoking?
Your argument is null and void.
Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.
Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.
Actually, as people tend to point out, criminals would still obtain guns illegally if you banned them. The law would only stop those who actually follow the law.People use guns to kill people
Everyone knows this.
The democrats think by banning one type of weapon they can prevent mass murder.
It may cut it down--until mass murderers learn how to build bombs out of household items.
All they have to do is channel their inner McVeigh! Or Rudolph.
You're absolutely correct. Only further proof that banning guns would be silly and counterproductive.Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.
And yet, young blood, a scalpel is an instrument of medicine, but it is used to kill the unborn on a daily basis.
I killed a ton of unborns with a tube sock in highschool. I'm sure you did tooGiving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.
And yet, young blood, a scalpel is an instrument of medicine, but it is used to kill the unborn on a daily basis.
Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.
Are you willing to use the same logic concerning automobiles, planes, knives, ships, baseball bats, axes, hammers, natural gas piped into homes, arrows, swimming pools, race tracks, drag racers, parachutes, tall buildings, bridges, and many other items, inventions, and instruments of an advanced and civilized world?The problem is NOT guns, rather it's PEOPLE, period. A gun does no harm unless a mentally unstable person uses it to inflict harm. The problem is the mentally disturbed, the haters, the vengeful, the fanatics, the extremists, the rogue banner carriers, the suicidal, the losers that need front page headlines, the wannabe martyrs, gangs, criminals, egotistical bullies ( including members of law enforcement ), and racists.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Guns do not kill, but lunatics with guns do kill.
I'll never understand what's so hard to understand about the problem. I do not know why people blame guns. I do not know why people think that we can legislate guns out of the hands of the above mentioned people. People will get their hands on guns whether we have gun restriction laws or not, just plain fact.
In short, "no solution exists, so why the hell try".
The lunatics mostly obtain guns legally. Of course some guns are stolen, but purchased or stolen guns used in mass shootings of innocent men, women and children originated from the hand of a gun producer, and/or purveyor to a gun buyer; somewhere along that line one of them was careless, greedy or complicit in the future use of the gun for evil.
His point is that you're blaming the tool and not the people abusing it. For example, if someone threw a rock through a window, it would not be the rock's fault, but the person who threw it. Sure, you could ban rocks, but people who intend to abuse said rocks in the first place would still abuse them, because they were intending to do wrong with them in the first place.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Let's up the ante ask for cases in which a Pressure Cooker, a bag of Fertilizer, a Flame Thrower or a Knife willingly and knowingly killed someone!
Or a nuclear bomb.
I just love it when an ignorant moonbat unwittingly and unknowingly proves my point.
Merci beaucoup mon petit moron.
What did you prove? That only sentient things are illegal, banned or regulated? You've proved nothing.
Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
His point is that you're blaming the tool and not the people abusing it. For example, if someone threw a rock through a window, it would not be the rock's fault, but the person who threw it. Sure, you could ban rocks, but people who intend to abuse said rocks in the first place would still abuse them, because they were intending to do wrong with them in the first place.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Let's up the ante ask for cases in which a Pressure Cooker, a bag of Fertilizer, a Flame Thrower or a Knife willingly and knowingly killed someone!
Or a nuclear bomb.
I just love it when an ignorant moonbat unwittingly and unknowingly proves my point.
Merci beaucoup mon petit moron.
What did you prove? That only sentient things are illegal, banned or regulated? You've proved nothing.
And you're a bigger fool, fool.FYI - Many things give one cancer, proven fact. Cigarettes get the majority of the blame because no one can prove that they do or don't cause cancer. I have been smoking ( an average of a pack a day ) since I was 17 1/2 years old, and I'll be 69 years old next month, and never had cancer. My brother ( he's a year younger than I am ) has never smoked, yet had esophageal cancer 5 years ago and had 3 inches of his esophagus removed. Many people smoke all of their lives, and never develop cancer. There are many different types of cancer, and no one has proven a case that EVERYONE that smokes, dies of cancer. Cigarettes are an easy target for fanatics to bitch about.I have not heard of this kind of gun.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
Why does this argument only apply to guns?
Cigarettes don't give you cancer, people give you cancer!
It's a dumb argument.
Cancer can be caused by certain chemicals in the air, contaminated food, high levels of toxins in water and household products, and certain pesticides and insecticides. The sun can cause skin cancer.
But, guns are only deadly when crazies and lunatics use them to inflict harm on others. Cigarettes are only deadly when combined with other factors, such as mentioned above. Cancer is still an unknown as far as a definite cause. Speculation concerning cigarettes is NOT rock solid proof of the ill affects being claimed by so many people. Do some research on cancer and see how many causes you'll find. Is it proven that women with breast cancer only get it as a result of cigarette smoking? What would you say about those that smoke all of their lives, die in their 90s, and die from natural causes or causes totally unrelated to cigarette smoking?
Your argument is null and void.
You're a fool. I too am 69 yo and I began to see the smokers I grew up and or worked with begin to die right around their 50th birthday. Not all of cancer, though one suspects they would of, had they not died of some other condition caused by tobacco.
Those things you mentioned are decisions you make on your own, to harm yourself. People who are that determined would turn to something else, like alcohol.Giving a reason, not making an excuse. Guns are something completely different from anthrax, as they're tools for defending yourself or hunting. You cannot hunt or defend yourself with Anthrax.I don't think Anthrax has a use outside of hurting someone. I can't confirm that, though. It's also not really useful for defending yourself or someone else.Cite an instance, ANY INSTANCE, of a Gun willingly & knowingly killing someone.
If you can not find any such case then tell me, what is the one common denominator that forces that gun to kill even though it doesn't have the will to do it itself.
Why are you making the case to legalize anthrax?
You're not answering the question, you are making excuses.
It's not a reason. If you want to argue that only things that's purpose is to hurt people should be illegal then what about LSD, MDMA or heroin? Gambling in many instances is illegal. Those have purposes other than to harm humans.
Land mines could be used to defend your property, they are illegal.
You don't have an argument.
