Why Gun Control Laws Are Meaningless Government Ploys

[bobevenson]

Only a simpleton like you would come up with New Mexico on the spur of the moment.

It was only a bloody suggestion, Bob.

A mindless one, you might add.

[Scott Mayers]

You can compare keeping guns out of the hands of people you don't want to have them to keeping drugs out of the hands of people you don't want to have them. What has the billions and billions of dollars spent on the so-called drug problem accomplished?

This is the problem, Bob: If you give the right of one set of people to have guns, it imposes the necessity of others to have them who prefer NOT to have them but are concerned of those who DO.

There should not be gun restrictions on ownership unless misused, and no background checks of any kind on gun purchases. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide a last-ditch defense of the people against a tyrannical government.

"Should?" What gives you the moral high-ground? The amendment was only intended to allow one to have a right to bear arms WITH the understanding that it was not absolute. If it WAS absolute, it would also mean the government would have the very power to overthrow its population non-democratically should they 'think' the people too might be threatening. Even the military and police are restricted in this sense and with a stronger set of restrictions of use than you seem to think you should have as a non-elected member of society to enforce.

So why 'should' you have zero restrictions?

[bobevenson]

Please specify the restrictions you have in mind.

[Obvious Leo]

Please specify the restrictions you have in mind.

We already covered this, Bob. Gun ownership should be restricted to shitheads who will then be required by law to use them to shoot other shitheads. Problem solved. Everybody gets what they want and the world becomes a safer place into the bargain.

[bobevenson]

Please specify the restrictions you have in mind.

We already covered this, Bob. Gun ownership should be restricted to shitheads who will then be required by law to use them to shoot other shitheads. Problem solved. Everybody gets what they want and the world becomes a safer place into the bargain.

May you and the rest of you fucked up aborigines find yourselves with only boomerangs to overthrow a tyrannical government.

[uwot]

Reverend Bob, I'm confused; I thought all governments, except the future AEP administration, are tyrannical.

[Arising_uk]

May you and the rest of you fucked up aborigines find yourselves with only boomerangs to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Which is a total laugh from the Yank as all they are gonna get is a far right wing tyrannical govt which the gun-lovers will support and sectarian militias will be the order of the day.

[Ginkgo]

May you and the rest of you fucked up aborigines find yourselves with only boomerangs to overthrow a tyrannical government.

I identify myself as an aboriginal person in my country. So don't cast aspersions on my ancestry you worthless piece of shit.

[bobevenson]

Reverend Bob, I'm confused; I thought all governments, except the future AEP administration, are tyrannical.

Yes, that's true, but other governments are tyrannical on a scale of 1 to 10. People most definitely need guns when the tyrannical rating reaches 10.

[Obvious Leo]

Reverend Bob, I'm confused; I thought all governments, except the future AEP administration, are tyrannical.

Yes, that's true, but other governments are tyrannical on a scale of 1 to 10. People most definitely need guns when the tyrannical rating reaches 10.

Bob. If the AEP manages to seize power in your failed nation-state will it then be lawful for somebody to put a bullet into the polluted little brain of its president, which presumably will be YOU.?

[bobevenson]

Reverend Bob, I'm confused; I thought all governments, except the future AEP administration, are tyrannical.

Yes, that's true, but other governments are tyrannical on a scale of 1 to 10. People most definitely need guns when the tyrannical rating reaches 10.

Bob. If the AEP manages to seize power in your failed nation-state will it then be lawful for somebody to put a bullet into the polluted little brain of its president, which presumably will be YOU.?

First of all, the AEP will not seize power, but come to it through the democratic process. Second, since the AEP is the antithesis of tyranny, there certainly won't be any fear of an uprising. Third, since I am merely the AEP theoretician, I would never be anybody's target.

[Obvious Leo]

First of all, the AEP will not seize power, but come to it through the democratic process.

This is very reassuring, Bob, because this clearly means that your population is not in any imminent danger.

Second, since the AEP is the antithesis of tyranny, there certainly won't be any fear of an uprising.

I wouldn't mind a dollar for every smug tyrant who thought the same throughout human history.

Third, since I am merely the AEP theoretician, I would never be anybody's target.

Shooting the messenger is an ancient and venerable tradition in power politics, Bob, so I suggest you exercise due caution and always wear a condom.

[bobevenson]

I suggest you exercise due caution and always wear a condom.

Is it true that Australians are two-condom girls (not one after the other, but both at the same time)?

[Ldelandy]

Where there is morality, personal honor, and individual responsibility, laws are unnecessary; where there is none, laws are meaningless and unenforceable.