Even After Latest Attack, Liberals Refuse to Support Vehicle Control

[bodecea]

Fallacy of fact: abortion is regulated

All medical procedures are...did you think you had a point?

Then abortion is regulated and permitted, which is supported by sane Americans.

All medical procedures are....did you still think you had a point?

You are trolling. Americans overwhelmingly support regulated abortion.

Actually, 72% of Americans want abortion illegal....they look at you as a monster...

Link to those figures...

 

[JakeStarkey]

WE have insecticide for the same reason: killing things. Should that be made illegal as well? Come to think of it, isopropyl alcohol and antibiotics should also be made illegal, since they are made to kill bacteria.

Wow so dumb.

How is that "dumb?" You are the one who implied anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal, not me.

Oh now you're making up things that I never said. You're really bad at arguing Brifag.

Allow me to quote your idiocy:

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.​

Yeah that's exactly the same as: anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal

Go play with someone else brifag

But it can be regulated.

 

[bripat9643]

WE have insecticide for the same reason: killing things. Should that be made illegal as well? Come to think of it, isopropyl alcohol and antibiotics should also be made illegal, since they are made to kill bacteria.

Wow so dumb.

How is that "dumb?" You are the one who implied anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal, not me.

Oh now you're making up things that I never said. You're really bad at arguing Brifag.

Allow me to quote your idiocy:

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.​

Yeah that's exactly the same as: anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal

Go play with someone else brifag

What I posted is the logical corollary to what you posted. Why should only cars be banned if they are manufactured solely to kill things? According to your theory, "killing things" is the reason to ban them, not the fact that they are automobiles.

Of course, you are too stupid to comprehend simple logic when you encounter it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wow so dumb.

How is that "dumb?" You are the one who implied anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal, not me.

Oh now you're making up things that I never said. You're really bad at arguing Brifag.

Allow me to quote your idiocy:

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.​

Yeah that's exactly the same as: anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal

Go play with someone else brifag

What I posted is the logical corollary to what you posted. Why should only cars be banned if they are manufactured solely to kill things? According to your theory, "killing things" is the reason to ban them, not the fact that they are automobiles.

1. You are boring
2. You don't even realize your own hypocrisy in your statement
3. My comment that's upsetting you so much was for no other reason than to annoy the OP, whose own OP was posted for no other reason than to annoy readers.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, one of the first things that I was taught when I started to handle guns at the age of 10, by my Uncle Bill and my Grandfather was that you never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill or destroy, because that is the main purpose of a gun.

And yeah...............I killed a few things with a gun, that's how we put meat on our table.

And.............if a gun is such a "multi purpose tool" then what else is a gun good for other than putting rounds down range to take out targets and whatever else you aim it at?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You know, one of the first things that I was taught when I started to handle guns at the age of 10, by my Uncle Bill and my Grandfather was that you never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill or destroy, because that is the main purpose of a gun.

And yeah...............I killed a few things with a gun, that's how we put meat on our table.

And.............if a gun is such a "multi purpose tool" then what else is a gun good for other than putting rounds down range to take out targets and whatever else you aim it at?

Defending yourself. Next...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.

A gun is a device that propels a projectile down a tube via the detonation of explosive substances. That is a guns purpose. What you are talking about is application and use, which is different.

A vehicle is just a 4,000 lb projectile with an accelerator that is in the control of the owner. How many toddlers and children do we find get killed because of the actions of an irresponsible person that's behind it? How difficult would it be to use the fuel of the vehicle as an explosive accelerant? Vehicles are just another tool to be used based solely on the intent of the person behind it.

 

[westwall]

Even in old west towns open carry was not allowed everywhere..

Pretty much untrue. There were a few places that tried it, and then abandoned those rules very quickly. You watch too many bad TV shows.

It's something you wish but is not true..
When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law..Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?
The shoot-out at the OK corral took place because the Earp brothers, along with John "Doc" Holliday, wanted to disarm the Clanton gang.Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

Yes, they tried it, and then they abandoned it. There are lots of tales about checking guns at the marshals office but having actually BEEN to a marshals office I can assure they didn't have the ROOM to store all of those guns that were supposedly dropped off. Also, the majority of the ordinances were directed at the cattlement. the citizenry of the towns were allowed to keep their guns on them, but the out of towners weren't.

They also were required to stay in certain parts of town, you have no doubt heard the term "the wrong side of the tracks"? that is a term that originated in Hays City Kansas. You see, the cattlemen were required to stay on one side of the railroad tracks lest they infect the locals.

I particularly like this little tale from Juneau. The tale is that Earp dropped it off at the local Marshals office prior to his leaving. The problem is Earp didn't use S&W revolvers. He was a Colt man through and through. Add to that the lack of trigger guard (a modification that no real gunfighter would ever do) and you have a cute tale that is not born out by fact.

Which is true of the majority of gun control tales.

 

[my2¢]

I disagree with the premise of the thread. I'd think liberals and conservatives both are for vehicle control. Upon hearing of the incident in France I immediately thought back to the marines killed in Lebanon by truck bombs way back in the Reagan era and how these things are now commonly controlled by temporary concrete barriers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow so dumb.

How is that "dumb?" You are the one who implied anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal, not me.

Oh now you're making up things that I never said. You're really bad at arguing Brifag.

Allow me to quote your idiocy:

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.​

Yeah that's exactly the same as: anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal

Go play with someone else brifag

What I posted is the logical corollary to what you posted. Why should only cars be banned if they are manufactured solely to kill things? According to your theory, "killing things" is the reason to ban them, not the fact that they are automobiles.

Of course, you are too stupid to comprehend simple logic when you encounter it.

fallacy of a false corollary

Cars serve utilitarian purposes; they are not designed to kill.

Guns are designed to kill; from that purpose, they can be used from other purposes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know, one of the first things that I was taught when I started to handle guns at the age of 10, by my Uncle Bill and my Grandfather was that you never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill or destroy, because that is the main purpose of a gun.

And yeah...............I killed a few things with a gun, that's how we put meat on our table.

And.............if a gun is such a "multi purpose tool" then what else is a gun good for other than putting rounds down range to take out targets and whatever else you aim it at?

Defending yourself. Next...

That is you, sassy, defending the silliness of the far right gun nuts. ABS's point is to the core of the issue. A gun is designed to destroy what it is pointed at, a vehicle is not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Let's put the same controls on guns that are on cars.
No more, no less.
Great idea from a NRA supporter

 

[Neotrotsky]

No doubt they are in bed with that powerful and corrupt lobby group

AAA


thanks AAA, you have blood on your hands

Yes, the OP is 100% right. Vehicle ownership and use need to be regulated even more, right along with guns.

As a fascist liberal, do you own stock in buggy whips?

Typical Starkey....he was a Kasich supporter....I laugh everytime I see him post it...but yeah we need to regulate trucks even more, they are too dangerous......anything that can cause harm to someone should be banned.....immediately!

Your candidate is a silly goof, so we are fine with that. 31000 gun deaths, 29000 vehicle deaths. Yeah, regulation makes sense. 93% of America wants it, and you are wrong.

Ahhh there you go with that disproven 93% lie. Face it propagandist, if it weren't for prevarication on a grand scale you would have nothing to say. What was it your master Goebbels had to say? "If you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one!" Something to that effect?

Truth is hard for the left,
in fact it is their worst enemy

Since the Democrats's MSM never hold Democrats accountable for their lies
they feel free to do it all the time

Like you can keep your doctor if you want

 

[bripat9643]

How is that "dumb?" You are the one who implied anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal, not me.

Oh now you're making up things that I never said. You're really bad at arguing Brifag.

Allow me to quote your idiocy:

I demand that all vehicles that exist for the sole purpose of killing things be immediately taken off the road.​

Yeah that's exactly the same as: anything that is manufactured solely to kill "things" should be illegal

Go play with someone else brifag

What I posted is the logical corollary to what you posted. Why should only cars be banned if they are manufactured solely to kill things? According to your theory, "killing things" is the reason to ban them, not the fact that they are automobiles.

Of course, you are too stupid to comprehend simple logic when you encounter it.

fallacy of a false corollary

Cars serve utilitarian purposes; they are not designed to kill.

Guns are designed to kill; from that purpose, they can be used from other purposes.

You don't even know what a corollary is, Fakey. Whether they serve utilitarian purposes was specifically ruled out by the analogy.

 

[bripat9643]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Let's put the same controls on guns that are on cars.
No more, no less.
Great idea from a NRA supporter

Cars aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Show me where the Bill of Rights mentions automobiles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Let's put the same controls on guns that are on cars.
No more, no less.
Great idea from a NRA supporter

Cars aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, moron.

The Courts have established that driving is a right.

 

[bripat9643]

The terrorist who used a truck to kill dozens of people in Nice, France, the other day would have been unable to kill so many people without the truck. Furthermore, each year, people use vehicles to deliberately harm or kill other people, and of course tens of thousand of people die each year in traffic accidents. Yet, despite this carnage, and despite the presence of viable alternatives, liberals still refuse to support meaningful vehicle control, much less a ban on personal vehicle ownership. And it's disgraceful.

Let's put the same controls on guns that are on cars.
No more, no less.
Great idea from a NRA supporter

Cars aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, moron.

The Courts have established that driving is a right.

Why did the DA tell me it was a privilege? The government could outlaw cars tomorrow, and there wouldn't be squat the courts could do or would do about it

 

[NYcarbineer]

Vehicles have to be registered, you have to be licensed to operate one, you have to take tests to be licensed, and you have to be insured.

Put that in your gun analogy and smoke it.

Show me where the Bill of Rights mentions automobiles.

Not relevant.