View Single Post
Old May 16, 2008, 12:00 am   #306 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley
BANNED
 
Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica
Posts: 7,320
Quote:
Quote by: lsbskins1 View Post
It is not realism to insist that no level of death and destruction would cause you to surrender your "right" to own whatever type of weapon you choose.

Sure it is, because whatever number of deaths you cite, I'm sure the number of deaths associated with automobiles exceeds that number over time, yet that doesn't change you view of automibiles. You still see those as a useful tool, likely because you use one regularly.


Yet, in truth, it would be far easier to procure, and use an aotumobile to kill somebody maliciously were the only intent to kill. So again, you're logic falls apart.


Quote:
Quote by: lsbskins1 View Post
It is not realism to insist that anyone who advocates for restrictions, no matter how reasonable, is an SS style oppressor.

I didn't, I said one would need to be to "garuntee" anybodies safety. You are just trying to sell the illusion of safety, though you yourself admit you are not intent on banning the guns most often used in the commision of crimes.


Quote:
Quote by: lsbskins1 View Post
You always insist that people get your positions exactly right, but you feel free to exaggerate mine. Let's make this plain. I would allow you to own a shot gun, I would allow you to own a rifle suitable for deer hunting or hunting whatever game you chose to hunt. I would not allow you to own assault rifles or 20 different automatic pistols.

Right, you don't care to remove the tools people use to commit crimes, you just want us to appease your irrational fears. Like I said, you want a society of saccrificial animals.


Quote:
Quote by: lsbskins1 View Post
And I fully realise that Whitman's arsenal was made up of guns I would not ban (except the M1). I understand the world can not be rendered harmless. I understand there is a certain level of danger one must accept to retain freedom. But there should be no blank check and that is essentially what you offer.

That's essentially what was garunteed by the choice of the word "arms".


How would an "armed Militia" arm itself ( which was the understanding ) if the manufacture, sales, and possesion of "arms" is illegal?


You're in denial here, plain, and simple.
Milton Bradley is offline   Reply With Quote