- This topic has 5 voices and 48 replies.
-
Posts
-
If you're talking about this I think he's an idiot.I'm also very much in a frame of mind that this is not the time to talk gun control or rights or even criticize the president. At least let these parents bury their kids first. 🙁
Yeah, that looks like the right video. I would not call myself an Alex Jones fan at all, but at the same time some of what he says can be interesting. I do wonder if this kind of thing will help snowball anti-gun legislation.
I fear this event will trigger gun control measures especially when Obama threatens to make executive orders. I also tend to think this is exactly what the government has been waiting for to initiate gun confiscations. I hope I'm wrong.
My personal opinion is that Alex Jones is by and large and idiot that hurts the conservative cause.I agree with Donnie that the knee jerk reaction to his tragedy will be a call for gun-control. Reason has no place in the gun control debate for liberals.
The Right hasn't been making much sense either. As soon as someone even hints at assault weapons bans, more comprehensive background checks, not allowing felons or the mentally unstable to own guns, or common sense gun rights, they immediately go all conspiracy theorist and think “they” want to disarm Americans.
Aside from any gun debate, start with making it a Federal crime for any civilian to sell, purchase or own body armor. Only a paranoiac or someone intent on doing great harm would own it.
Aside from any gun debate, start with making it a Federal crime for any civilian to sell, purchase or own body armor. Only a paranoiac or someone intent on doing great harm would own it.
Then call me a paranoiac. I have both class III body armor and a ballistic helmet. I will be prepared if the worst happens.
Aside from any gun debate, start with making it a Federal crime for any civilian to sell, purchase or own body armor. Only a paranoiac or someone intent on doing great harm would own it.
If you do this you begin the slippery slope. If you authorize the ban on one item, it will lead to more bans eventually to all personal firearms are banned. We can't set this precedent.
If you do this you begin the slippery slope.
I do not agree with this slippery slope argument. Banning one type of item will not lead to a ban on all. For example, let's say they make a law that a private citizen can only own 10 guns. That's not a slippery slope that leads to them banning private gun ownership altogether, it just sets a limit.
I'm looking at the legal precedent it sets. If they can ban one firearm related item, they can ban more and more and more. Why make it easy for them to do so if you don't have to? Better to be safe than sorry. Instead of banning any guns they should make them more available and easier to carry openly. That way when some idiot tries what Lanz did, somebody will be nearby with a gun to take him down before the body count gets higher.
that's like saying banning drunk driving is a slippery slope which will lead to banning alcohol.
I don't think that analogy works. Drunk driving is inherently criminal behavior, whereas owning X number of guns is not inherently criminal. Using those guns to murder your neighbor is inherently criminal, but merely owning them is not. Yet, I still think your refutation of the slippery slope argument is more reasonable than not.
I'm looking at the legal precedent it sets. If they can ban one firearm related item, they can ban more and more and more. Why make it easy for them to do so if you don't have to? Better to be safe than sorry. Instead of banning any guns they should make them more available and easier to carry openly. That way when some idiot tries what Lanz did, somebody will be nearby with a gun to take him down before the body count gets higher.
Tell me, are you expecting that some fifth grader carrying openly would have been able to step in? Or perhaps some teacher? Obviously not. A school is a ripe target precisely because no one would have a gun in a place like that, and I don't think we should ever expect them to. This is one reason why what happened is so tragic; it's a place where no one would ever expect the need for self defense to arise.More liberal carrying laws would probably lead to a greater number of criminals being stopped by the hands of private citizens. Yet at the same time, I don't really think it would ever lead to a net decrease in shootings like this in the first place. Honestly, for me the real issue that needs to be addressed isn't really guns, but rather the darkness in men's hearts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
