Another horrendous school shooting....What will the Left do NOW?

[TNHarley]

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

why wouldn't they?

they study auto deaths

Crash Deaths in the US: Where We Stand

that's their job.

but gun nuts are afraid they'll be able to pinpoint specific trends and gun nuts don't like that. it isn't what the NRA pays for

The trend being a liberal butt-stain off his meds shoots up a school.

Sorry, nick Cruz was a white identity wingnut.

He hated Jews, Blacks, world banking...ya know the same stuff you do.

You knew him so well, did you? Do you also know when they are going to release all that to the public?

 

[TheOldSchool]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

But that argument is irrelevant. We have a 2nd.

Which

Okay Mr. pro mass slaughters

Spastic knee-jerk, cowardly gun grabber response.

You are claiming that grabbing guns will save lives, when already your "Gun Free Zones" are where most children die.

You're irrational if you think you can take all guns away.

Remember, ONLY CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY DISTURBED shoot up innocent people.

But you focus on objects. Do you blame cellphones for texting deaths also?

A gun free zone is designed to increase the punishment in the event that somebody commits a gun crime. Go ahead and take away the label. Won’t change anything.

 

[otto105]

You gun grabbers have no clue.

As an avid supporter of the 2nd, I am not an avid supporter of the NRA.
I actually think being able to purchase an AR15 at age 18 is probably not a good idea.

What I DON'T want is a constant impairment or infringement of the 2nd for law abiding citizens who are capable of responsibly handling them.
Calling for Magazine limits across the board is knee-jerk. It depends on WHO has them.

If you understood the Constitution (and more importantly HISTORY), you would understand the position of most who defend the 2nd Amendment vigorously. It's about human dignity and prevention of suffering on a scale FAR more massive than all school shootings in history combined.

But if you believe government should have authority over every aspect of personal lives, then you probably see the 2nd as getting in the way.

Alice, it’s time to come out of the rabbit hole.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The Left REALLY needs to stop parroting this moronic notion that people who are Pro 2nd Amendment want or like children getting killed.

If you really believe that you are indeed sick.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

A gun free zone is designed to increase the punishment in the event that somebody commits a gun crime. Go ahead and take away the label. Won’t change anything.

Fail.
Hate to tell ya but almost all these mass shooting take place in your "Gun Free" labeled zones. (with a few exceptions). And the perp is usually a mentally disturbed (normal) Leftist like the baseball field shooter.

Show us the list of school shootings that took place in heavily Conservative areas.
I think you'll find that they occur in dense liberal areas. WHY????

Spend some time contemplating why that is.

I know the answer and it's obvious.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That’s a terrible idea and not how the world works. Just stick to your argument that the massacre of children is nothing more than a small price to pay for gun rights.

You have no ground to stand on - Mr. Pro Abortionist

So using your logic.....we should never have fought in WWII because children died.

Thanks for being honest and admitting that massacres and slaughters are just a small price to you. The WW2 comparison is terrible though.

 

[TNHarley]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

But that argument is irrelevant. We have a 2nd.

Which

Okay Mr. pro mass slaughters

Spastic knee-jerk, cowardly gun grabber response.

You are claiming that grabbing guns will save lives, when already your "Gun Free Zones" are where most children die.

You're irrational if you think you can take all guns away.

Remember, ONLY CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY DISTURBED shoot up innocent people.

But you focus on objects. Do you blame cellphones for texting deaths also?

A gun free zone is designed to increase the punishment in the event that somebody commits a gun crime. Go ahead and take away the label. Won’t change anything.

TN passed a law that if a CCP holder went into an establishment and couldnt carry in his gun, and he gets physically attacked and cant defend himself and his family, he can then sue them.
Basically, what it means is that when you put up that sign, it is a guarantee the establishment will protect you.
Which is fucking amazing.

 

[sartre play]

You gun grabbers have no clue.

As an avid supporter of the 2nd, I am not an avid supporter of the NRA.
I actually think being able to purchase an AR15 at age 18 is probably not a good idea.

What I DON'T want is a constant impairment or infringement of the 2nd for law abiding citizens who are capable of responsibly handling them.
Calling for Magazine limits across the board is knee-jerk. It depends on WHO has them.

If you understood the Constitution (and more importantly HISTORY), you would understand the position of most who defend the 2nd Amendment vigorously. It's about human dignity and prevention of suffering on a scale FAR more massive than all school shootings in history combined.

But if you believe government should have authority over every aspect of personal lives, then you probably see the 2nd as getting in the way.

Quote) gun people are the ones who should police the wantabees,show there distain for the nuts that take there riffles to lunch & wall mart.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Again for the painfully SLOW and STUPID there is NO ban they are simply prevented from making political attacks on firearms they can study it all they want as long as they leave the politics out.

 

[miketx]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

But that argument is irrelevant. We have a 2nd.

Which

Okay Mr. pro mass slaughters

Spastic knee-jerk, cowardly gun grabber response.

You are claiming that grabbing guns will save lives, when already your "Gun Free Zones" are where most children die.

You're irrational if you think you can take all guns away.

Remember, ONLY CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY DISTURBED shoot up innocent people.

But you focus on objects. Do you blame cellphones for texting deaths also?

A gun free zone is designed to increase the punishment in the event that somebody commits a gun crime. Go ahead and take away the label. Won’t change anything.

Not surprising that they are not designed to keep guns out. lol. Nothing liberals do makes any sense. Just, we need another law, another law, yeah!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

And don't be stupid and say something like "Gun control is not a game" (in your PeeWee Herman voice)...it's a metaphor.

Yeah know, maybe if you pro-gun people would stop shooting people the problem would settle down. But like an alcoholic you just can’t resist another round.

Mentally ill and criminals shoot people and NOTHING you have proposed in the past would stop that and nothing proposed now would stop it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

why do you think they shouldn't?

They already can study it retard te ban is on politizing it. No money for political papers.

 

[TheOldSchool]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

But that argument is irrelevant. We have a 2nd.

Which

Okay Mr. pro mass slaughters

Spastic knee-jerk, cowardly gun grabber response.

You are claiming that grabbing guns will save lives, when already your "Gun Free Zones" are where most children die.

You're irrational if you think you can take all guns away.

Remember, ONLY CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY DISTURBED shoot up innocent people.

But you focus on objects. Do you blame cellphones for texting deaths also?

A gun free zone is designed to increase the punishment in the event that somebody commits a gun crime. Go ahead and take away the label. Won’t change anything.

TN passed a law that if a CCP holder went into an establishment and couldnt carry in his gun, and he gets physically attacked and cant defend himself and his family, he can then sue them.
Basically, what it means is that when you put up that sign, it is a guarantee the establishment will protect you.
Which is fucking amazing.

Only on public property though. Schools, parks, and libraries exempted.

 

[TheOldSchool]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

But that argument is irrelevant. We have a 2nd.

Which

Okay Mr. pro mass slaughters

Spastic knee-jerk, cowardly gun grabber response.

You are claiming that grabbing guns will save lives, when already your "Gun Free Zones" are where most children die.

You're irrational if you think you can take all guns away.

Remember, ONLY CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY DISTURBED shoot up innocent people.

But you focus on objects. Do you blame cellphones for texting deaths also?

A gun free zone is designed to increase the punishment in the event that somebody commits a gun crime. Go ahead and take away the label. Won’t change anything.

Not surprising that they are not designed to keep guns out. lol. Nothing liberals do makes any sense. Just, we need another law, another law, yeah!

Ah the “laws don't work” argument

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Thanks for being honest and admitting that massacres and slaughters are just a small price to you. The WW2 comparison is terrible though.

Welp, you just convinced me you're too stupid to debate with.

Please don't shoot up any schools ok?

 

[miketx]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe.

Tip leads to seizure of drugs, AK-47 at Fayetteville home :: WRAL.com

During a search of the home, officers found 4.5 units of oxycodone, 17 units of Adderall, 125 grams of marijuana, an AK-47, two handguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and drug paraphernalia, police said.

So we restrict all the LAWFUL gun owners from getting guns, but what can your government GUARANTEE that illegal guns can stop crossing the southern border? I mean you guys don't want a wall, and want those who just want to do jobs some Americans wont do, but those like MS-13 will go out of their way to kill US, and like the 39 times the police were called and the FBI was notified the school shooting still happened. I will rely on my own self and my God given abilities to protect my self and my own family and not rely on some government failure to allow such shootings.

Liberal compassion ends up killing people...

The real reason why liberals want US citizens disarmed, is to they can come take our stuff and rape our women.. That is the real reason and without weapons, we cant stop them. Liberalism is EVIL...

Rape our women?


What are you a freaking Neanderthal?

That's what he muzzies in Europe do everyday. Why do you deny it?

 

[forkup]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

The 2nd amendment isn't vital. By the way do you think it's a good idea that anyone can own any weapon? If not you are also for gun restrictions. Even if you read the 2nd amendment it's ambiguous. There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want. As to your UK bit, even if they have a mass shooting tomorrow it would still not invalidate gun restrictions. My point was exactly that gun restriction are not a wonder cure. They are just a way to keep the problem under a semblance of control. And the oldness of the argument is indeed irrelevant, the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy is.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Quote) gun people are the ones who should police the wantabees,show there distain for the nuts that take there riffles to lunch & wall mart.

Well, I would never take a rifle into Walmart (unless I was returning it).

But at the end of the day....I'd rather be surrounded by 100 people carrying rifles SAFELY anywhere than around ONE liberal lunatic shooting up a school or public theater.

And if I was, I would thank GOD and the 2nd I had my firearm on my side concealed.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Thanks for being honest and admitting that massacres and slaughters are just a small price to you. The WW2 comparison is terrible though.

Welp, you just convinced me you're too stupid to debate with.

Please don't shoot up any schools ok?

Why do you say that? Your stance is that massacres are fine as long as your access to guns isn’t impeded. So what do you care if somebody shoots up a school?

 

[miketx]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

The 2nd amendment isn't vital. By the way do you think it's a good idea that anyone can own any weapon? If not you are also for gun restrictions. Even if you read the 2nd amendment it's ambiguous. There is no militia anymore and "well armed' can be taken however you want. As to your UK bit, even if they have a mass shooting tomorrow it would still not invalidate gun restrictions. My point was exactly that gun restriction are not a wonder cure. They are just a way to keep the problem under a semblance of control. And the oldness of the argument is indeed irrelevant, the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy is.

The second amendment is vital to the security of a free people. It's keeps tyranny in check and enables people to stop from being murdered and raped like all you libs want.