or its a high powered rifle when the police use it
I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:
In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.
Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?
I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.
If a single shot always resulted in stopping the threat and you never ever missed while under stress I may agree with you.Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?
I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:
In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.
Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?
I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.
I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:
In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.
Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?
I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.
What country is this?
And a to the rest of it too.
I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:
It is not a matter of need.
The Constitution spells out our RIGHT. Big shock boys and girls, I don't even own a evil black rifle. I'm not fighting to even keep something I have. I am fighting to preserve my RIGHT period. I don't have to argue a need, explain a reason. And yes the High Highness Court of the land got it wrong, shall not be infringed actually means shall not be infringed. Not can be infringed to the degree that we in power say is reasonable infringement.
Edit: Apologizes to IndyDave1776, he got in before my rant.
I don't even own a evil black rifle. I'm not fighting to even keep something I have. I am fighting to preserve my RIGHT period.
But that's simply nonsense. It will typically take several rounds to kill a person, and even then with prompt proper medical attention a person can survive a truly staggering amount of punishment. Add that in with the need to be able to deal with potential multiple assailant situations and 30 rounds is hardly enough.
I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:
In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, (By those who eschew the acceptance of personal reaponsibility)standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available,Please explain that to the families of victims of violent crime in Gun Free Zones and Cities, I'm sure they will feel all Unicorns and Rainbow happy where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; This would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that you believe this tripe is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.
Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time? There you go with your BS "Needs Based" views again. No body "NEEDS" anything except a dwelling and sustenance. Shall we come to your place and relieve you of everything you don't NEED?
I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called.The fact that the Left's definitions keep changing, clouding minds and causing confusion, pretty much proove that the care very much what it is called. They use this to create fear in order to further their goals I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.
I disagree with the cartoon. I think the gun control debate asks a more nuanced question:
In a day and age where big gov't is generally accepted, standing armies are the norm, local law enforcement is generally available, where elections as well as gov't checks and balances have been demonstrated to keep gov't tyranny at bay; is there a reasonable case to be made that weapons designed and perfected for battlefield and urban combat roles should be the same weapons in people's homes.
Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time?
I don't believe anyone on the anti-gun side of the argument gives a rip about what the rifle is called. I think we on the pro-gun side make a lot of hay about vocabulary because it's an easy (and cheap) way to score a few points in the argument. But it has nothing to do with the debate itself.
...Is personal defense, in and of itself, reason enough to be able to kill people 30 at a time? ...