On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
What do you mean by average citizen? Like not military, law enforcement, security...that sort of thing?

On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
You lost me at second amendment nonsense.

Clearly then all 10 amendments in the bill of rights are equally invalid right? Or is your outrage specific to the second?

On Sep 13, 2014, acesover wrote:
Do you see the difference in these two statements?

I need one.

I want one.

Carry it further.

I need food.

I want steak an lobster.

Now let us suppose you only eat vegetables. You can of course say. You don't need steak and lobster. Eat vegetables. But I want steak and lobster. I don't really care what you want me to eat it is my choice. Your wants are not my problem. Of course you can say again food and guns are different. You can argue that one needs food. But then you also state that cars and guns are different. So nothing in your opinion compares with guns, is that about right? Because only deranged people want guns and all other people whoe want fast cars or motorcycles are ok just gun people are deranged. Take a step back and look again. No one here is deranged. They just want different things. In fact I am sure some who want that corvette also want an uzi and like steak and lobster also. Does that make them deranged? Who are you to tell anyone what they can have or not have? What gives you the authority to dictate to others what they can own?

You have a better chance drowning in a 10 foot swimming pool than a 4 foot pool so no one should have a 10 foot deep pool. But many people want them. Of course pools are different than guns. We all get that. Just showing how wrong you are when you believe people should have only what you believe they should have. This list is endless of things that people want. People want all sorts of things, fast cars, bow and arrow, roller skates, bowling ball, guns, tennis rackets, pogo sticks, ice skates, the list is endless. All of these things should be handled responsibly. But none of them should be banned from ownership.

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
You lost me at second amendment nonsense.

Clearly then all 10 amendments in the bill of rights are equally invalid right? Or is your outrage specific to the second?

I have no "outrage" over the second amendment. Typical try though.
Enter Danny's "straw man". Also typical, accusing someone of something they do repeatedly.

As I stated in a previous post I think that any citizen should have the right to keep and bear arms as a method of protecting themselves and their family/property.

Do you have the ability to discuss ONE issue without making meaningless comparisons or analogies?

You still haven't answered one of my questions Danny, you just pretended to.

Wow, only one word capitalized! I'm improving. Now I'll hurt less peoples feelings! Hooray for me!

On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I have never said anyone needs one. I can not imagine a reason for one. I can not imagine why people listen to pan flute music either.

I think background checks make sense for firearms and for ammo

This is the confusing part which is why I am asking you questions you refuse to answer. How many people annually are killed by the uzi and where does that rank in firearm deaths?

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, acesover wrote:
Do you see the difference in these two statements?

I need one.

I want one.

Carry it further.

I need food.

I want steak an lobster.

Now let us suppose you only eat vegetables. You can of course say. You don't need steak and lobster. Eat vegetables. But I want steak and lobster. I don't really care what you want me to eat it is my choice. Your wants are not my problem. Of course you can say again food and guns are different. You can argue that one needs food. But then you also state that cars and guns are different. So nothing in your opinion compares with guns, is that about right? Because only deranged people want guns and all other people whoe want fast cars or motorcycles are ok just gun people are deranged. Take a step back and look again. No one here is deranged. They just want different things. In fact I am sure some who want that corvette also want an uzi and like steak and lobster also. Does that make them deranged? Who are you to tell anyone what they can have or not have? What gives you the authority to dictate to others what they can own?

You have a better chance drowning in a 10 foot swimming pool than a 4 foot pool so no one should have a 10 foot deep pool. But many people want them. Of course pools are different than guns. We all get that. Just showing how wrong you are when you believe people should have only what you believe they should have. This list is endless of things that people want. People want all sorts of things, fast cars, bow and arrow, roller skates, bowling ball, guns, tennis rackets, pogo sticks, ice skates, the list is endless. All of these things should be handled responsibly. But none of them should be banned from ownership.

Why is it fun to activate a killing machine Aces? What goes through your mind when you pull the trigger?

More nonsense. More inability to answer the questions a ten year old can answer. Yet you keep talking.
Congratulations.

See? No caps, no insults. I'm maturing rapidly.

On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:

So she was going to use it for hunting? Ok we have a problem with that now?

On Sep 13, 2014, balducci wrote:
Whatever. What I do I know is that you tend to over-parse words and phrases.

On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?

If "one life lost" in a country of 310 million is your threshold for acceptability, we're going to be banning quite a few things. I think I'll miss trampolines, skateboards, and roller coasters the most.

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?

If "one life lost" in a country of 310 million is your threshold for acceptability, we're going to be banning quite a few things. I think I'll miss trampolines, skateboards, and roller coasters the most.

If someone was going to pick up a rollercoaster a kill someone with it then maybe you'd have some point.

To take the fact that life has inherent risk, and use it to say that if you allow one risky thing you have to allow all risky things is ridiculous.

I never said that all guns should be banned, just the ones designed to kill many human beings in a very short period of time. Those should only be in the hands of highly trained professionals whose jobs might require the use of such weapons.

Pure common sense.