You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Piers Morgan losing it again
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
So if there were no laws, it would all be better? Consider the implications.Quote from Maverick74:
My point about bringing up the war on drugs was to demonstrate that laws cannot stop people from purchasing and using illegal drugs. Sure, it will stop and be effective in trivial cases. The same is true with guns. But if someone REALLY wants a gun and really wants to buy some drugs, no law is going to stop them. The laws are simply making it more profitable for the dealers, both gun and drug.
Quote from Brass:
You are clearly the master of parody, because no one can really be that stupid. Very entertaining.
The only idiot around here is you, my friend. The Founders created the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known. The 2nd Amendment has kept the machinations of despots - foreign and domestic - in check for the past 200 years. Love it or leave it.
Quote from Brass:
So if there were no laws, it would all be better? Consider the implications.
Come on. Brass...you're being difficult again. Nobody is saying there should not be no laws. We simply need to enforce the laws we have and focus government resources on the "causes" of these events vs going door to door and taking people's ability to protect themselves away from them. Most of the people on the left believe removing all guns will solve the problem even if they know this will never happen. The problem is even that extreme measure would not solve the problem.
Why is it that the left always moves to that extreme? People on the right want NO taxes or NO government or NO regulations. I think we can do with a lot less but certainly we don't need to add any more. Most of us just want a leaner and more effective government.
Fine, so why not ban automatic (and perhaps even semi-automatic) weaponry? That will at least prevent or limit the kind of outlying carnage when the wrong people get their hands on such arms. Is that a sufficient compromise? Along with better and more stringent background checks and requirements, and fully functioning and properly funded mental health facilities.Quote from Maverick74:
...Most of the people on the left believe removing all guns will solve the problem even if they know this will never happen. The problem is even that extreme measure would not solve the problem...
People don't need automatic weapons to protect their homes or for that level-playing-field "sport," hunting. And I sure as hell wouldn't want well-intentioned good samaritans walking around (swaggering?) with automatic weapons.
Sure, it won't get these weapons out of the hands of the wrong people who already own them, but unless you start somewhere, you go nowhere.
Quote from Brass:
Fine, so why not ban automatic (and perhaps even semi-automatic) weaponry? That will at least prevent or limit the kind of outlying carnage when the wrong people get their hands on such arms. Is that a sufficient compromise? Along with better and more stringent background checks and requirements, and fully functioning and properly funded mental health facilities.
Sure, it won't get these weapons out of the hands of the wrong people who already own them, but unless you start somewhere, you go nowhere.
When I hear the word ban, I see an arm's dealer eyes light up. No need to ban. I have no issue with back ground checks and waiting periods. I also support mandatory sentencing for any crime committed by a gun. I would support mandatory 10 years for any gun crime and mandatory life without parole for any convicted murder who used a gun to kill someone. Now even that will not stop the Holmes of the world, but it would be effective for going after gangs.
Quote from Brass:
Right. The last thing you want to try and do is limit access when trying to curtail usage. Sure. So the best way to prevent people from stealing your car is to be sure and leave the keys inside.
Oh come on. See why we can't get anywhere in these debates? Brass, are you denying the fact that gangs and the mafia won't seize upon the opportunity to provide the street with guns if you ban them at the retail level? Come on, don't be that obtuse. As far as cars go, yes, the more rare a car is, the higher the value. This is why limited edition cars trade at a premium or old classic cars that actually can increase in value with age!!!!
I actually knew a guy who was a car thief back in the day and he said if a thief wants your car, he'll get it. Locks or alarms are not going to stop him. They take the cars they want, not the cars that are available. Hence why car thieves don't hang out at redneck trailer parks stealing 1985 Ford Escorts that never have their doors locked.
Quote from Brass:
Right. The last thing you want to try and do is limit access when trying to curtail usage. Sure. So the best way to prevent people from stealing your car is to be sure and leave the keys inside.
"Banning" doesn't work, retard. Drugs are banned. Prostitution is banned. (Private) gambling, is banned. Handguns are largely banned in most Canadian cities, yet handgun crime is on the rise. How on earth do criminals buy guns, deal drugs, gamble or pimp hookers if all these things are "banned"?!?!?
Boggles the mind, doesn't it!?!?
You're not expecting perfection from those bans, are you?Quote from achilles28:
"Banning" doesn't work, retard. Drugs are banned. Prostitution is banned. (Private) gambling, is banned. Handguns are largely banned in most Canadian cities, yet handgun crime is on the rise. How on earth do criminals buy guns, deal drugs, gamble or pimp hookers if all these things are "banned"?!?!?
Boggles the mind, doesn't it!?!?