Gun Control

[Gary Childress]

Frankly I trust me with a nuke more than I trust them with a nuke; is just that I probably can't afford the maintenance/running/storage costs.

I wish nukes didn't exist. I wouldn't touch one with a ten bazillion-foot pole or be around one for all the money in the world. We shouldn't even be making them. No one should.

[henry quirk]

An elected group of people, as in a government, yes.

Why are elected folks better suited to control an atom bomb than you?

If it was possible to ensure NO body has the ability to own an atom bomb then I would prefer that...contrary to what you would prefer.

I don't disagree. I would prefer nukes didn't exist. But they do.

Freedom? Security? ..try explaining that to a parent of a child torn apart by an AR because people like you advocate that everyone has the right to weapons of mass destruction.

So: you choose security. To protect The Children.

[attofishpi]

An elected group of people, as in a government, yes.

Why are elected folks better suited to control an atom bomb than you?

Because I might have a bad day and get really annoyed with humanity. The idea is that there are checks and balances from one person having a bad day.

Freedom? Security? ..try explaining that to a parent of a child torn apart by an AR because people like you advocate that everyone has the right to weapons of mass destruction.

So: you choose security. To protect The Children.

Yes of course, and I know you won't understand this simple concept, no guns in society = FAR fewer mass killings of children (and innocent chaps like me sitting in a restaurant)

[henry quirk]

Because I might have a bad day and get really annoyed with humanity. The idea is that there are checks and balances from one person having a bad day.

So Hiroshima, Nagasaki: these events were okay becuz they passed muster?

I know you won't understand this simple concept, no guns in society = FAR fewer mass killings of children (and innocent chaps like me sitting in a restaurant)

Yes, they'll be safe; you'll be safe.

[attofishpi]

Because I might have a bad day and get really annoyed with humanity. The idea is that there are checks and balances from one person having a bad day.

So Hiroshima, Nagasaki: these events were okay becuz they passed muster?

I know you won't understand this simple concept, no guns in society = FAR fewer mass killings of children (and innocent chaps like me sitting in a restaurant)

Yes, they'll be safe; you'll be safe.

Oh, well then glad you understand. All you need to do now is start lobbying for tighter restrictions on gun ownership.

[henry quirk]

Oh, well then glad you understand. All you need to do now is start lobbying for tighter restrictions on gun ownership.

No, I chose freedom...

[attofishpi]

Oh, well then glad you understand. All you need to do now is start lobbying for tighter restrictions on gun ownership.

No, I chose freedom...

Oh, well more children to be massacred then, good for you Henry.

[Gary Childress]

Let's talk about it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZ9HCi6wBs

Yes. By all means, arm up. You never know when you might have to kill someone yourself instead of calling the police to handle the situation through the judicial process.

[attofishpi]

[commonsense]

AH hang on you fucking idiot, I didn't real eyes you are at war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Idiot.

When you completely erase the traditions of gun ownership and the necessary yet unfortunate need and use of violence from your culture, who is going to fight your wars?

When you build your perfect land of pacifism, who's going to stand up to the barbarians when they come knocking?

The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools... --Whoever

Straw man.

[commonsense]

With nukes and other bombs, missiles and mines, I think we all can agree that the difference between those and privately owned guns is one of type, and not just one of degree.

[henry quirk]

Yes. By all means, arm up. You never know when you might have to kill someone yourself instead of calling the police to handle the situation through the judicial process.

If you wanna rely on the police: do that.

I don't and won't.

[henry quirk]

With nukes and other bombs, missiles and mines, I think we all can agree that the difference between those and privately owned guns is one of type, and not just one of degree.

The difference is irrelevant.

The nature of the property has no bearing on the right to it.

[commonsense]

With nukes and other bombs, missiles and mines, I think we all can agree that the difference between those and privately owned guns is one of type, and not just one of degree.

The difference is irrelevant.

The nature of the property has no bearing on the right to it.

Then I must conclude that you are arguing in favor of every American’s legal right to own such property as a nuclear weapon.

[attofishpi]

With nukes and other bombs, missiles and mines, I think we all can agree that the difference between those and privately owned guns is one of type, and not just one of degree.

The difference is irrelevant.

The nature of the property has no bearing on the right to it.

Then I must conclude that you are arguing in favor of every American’s legal right to own such property as a nuclear weapon.

Yes he is, and that's the lunacy of Henry. Good job there arn't millions of people out there with Henrys foolish stance, we'd all be obliterated in no time.