First time I've ever cracked up laughing in the voting booth...
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
Canada. Thanks for asking.
So what this means, is anyone currently owning them legally, would be forced to hand them over, and probably components, under threat of fines/jail/etc-
And if they dont, their criminals.
Any one owning them illegaly, pretty much keeps them for whatever purpose they choose. Perhaps sold off on the black market etc-perhaps ending up in the hands of actual criminals.
How much will all this cost, again?
And if they dont, their criminals.
Any one owning them illegaly, pretty much keeps them for whatever purpose they choose. Perhaps sold off on the black market etc-perhaps ending up in the hands of actual criminals.
How much will all this cost, again?
I'm curious. Have you actually examined any of the statistical evidence? If so, which? I have and I find it very compelling. The real problem is that so few people are aware of it. The biggest reason for that is the liberalism of the media, which is so devoutly anti-gun that the statistical case for guns is rarely ever heard. In contrast, anti-gun campaigners, no matter how crazed ("paranoid", a word you appear to favor) or irrational, can readily have their views aired. It's your side that is that is the equivalent of the tobacco groups you referred to, that can carry on despite the weight of evidence being against them.
____________________
"For the health and safety of children, cute kittens and cuddly puppies, and the entire community, including those elderly folk who are nice too everybody and grow nice geraniums, the State of Illinois will enforce a total ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of , or looking or considering the aquisition of evil military-style assault weapons , long kitchen knives, rope, mace, tasers,sharp glass, ice picks, staplers, boxcutters, hammers, garden implements, blunt club- like objects, and .50 caliber rifles.
This will be inforced, by people carrying clubs, mace, firearms, tasers and restraining devices, who control the justice system."
___________________
Tick the "good" box!
"For the health and safety of children, cute kittens and cuddly puppies, and the entire community, including those elderly folk who are nice too everybody and grow nice geraniums, the State of Illinois will enforce a total ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of , or looking or considering the aquisition of evil military-style assault weapons , long kitchen knives, rope, mace, tasers,sharp glass, ice picks, staplers, boxcutters, hammers, garden implements, blunt club- like objects, and .50 caliber rifles.
This will be inforced, by people carrying clubs, mace, firearms, tasers and restraining devices, who control the justice system."
___________________
Tick the "good" box!
Suicide for Dems to go national with gun controls. Too big a divide between urban and more rural states on this issue and they need all the voters they can get in 08 if their new found strength is going to survive. Rural liberals, moderates, independents won't support controls but will support tougher gun crime sentencing or that type of thing.
Thanks RM - I've emailed that Illinois initiative out a dozen times already this morning.
Replaced the phrase .50 CAL in my head with all kinds of crazy things like dangerous muslim, jew, homosexual, homeless, obscene, poronographic, unpatriotic...
Thanks RM - I've emailed that Illinois initiative out a dozen times already this morning.
Replaced the phrase .50 CAL in my head with all kinds of crazy things like dangerous muslim, jew, homosexual, homeless, obscene, poronographic, unpatriotic...
No.
Too many people are not fiscally responsible. Too many people are not raising their children properly. Too many people engage in either impaired or just plain stupid driving. The list goes on. Do I want to be surrounded by these kinds of people also owning firearms? What do you think? The last thing I want is for fucked up people to feel a false sense of power and entitlement that seems to be associated with gun ownership, especially when they wrap themselves up in the flag about it. But that's just me.
Quote from Rearden Metal:
You mean all you have to do is tell them it's 'For the Children', and 80% of people will willingly waive their 2nd Amendment Rights?
This isn't fucking funny anymore.
I'm with you Rearden. I'm sick of them playing on our emotions in order to violate the democratic principles we profess to believe in. Scare us good and hard so we waive our rights to privacy THEN take our machine guns away from us. Every god fearing Christian should stock up on assault rifles and armor piercing bullets cause the next thing you know they will pass a law that says our kids should pray to Allah every morning in class. Where will be then? This is ridiculous! Everyone knows that assault rifles are good, they promote all of the best qualities in our people. They only point out the times that assault rifles are used for evil purposes. We never see the guys that uses assault rifles to do good.
What is there to worry about anyway?
If you don't use drugs, don't deal drugs, the odds of being killed by a gun are nil.
The most dangerous thing you can do is drive a car.
Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers.[22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.[23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24] Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.
If you don't use drugs, don't deal drugs, the odds of being killed by a gun are nil.
The most dangerous thing you can do is drive a car.
Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers.[22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.[23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24] Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.
Wait- I'm confused.
Are you talking about <b>actual</b> criminals who create <b>real</b> victims, or are you trying to blame the costs of drug prohibition on the prohibition violators instead of the nanny-state?
Looks like this is where you (Conservative) and I (Libertarian) part ways.