That was not hyperbole. You several times said that all gun bans don't work and they are bad. The UK clearly shows otherwise. You even admitted it and then reframed your argument to the US. So yes, you were being anti-intellectual when you knew the UK success and still ignored it when you made bold claims such as 'bans don't work'.
You were being anti intellectual when you knew that Switzerland doesn't have gun crimes despite having few gun bans.
This is another t reason you are never going to win a debate with me, you don't even understand the opposition. I never said "gun bans are bad" I said they only restrict or rights. I am for more rights, not less.
You don't even know you disagree, perhaps due to some temporary illiteracy based on personal issues. You didn't even read my post you just threw out a knee jerk anti intellectual argument to a point I never made.
Your debate skills are still terrible
I never claimed that bans were always good or necessary to public safety. Straw man. Again.
Your straw men against mine.
I never claimed that they are always bad either.
Get off of your high horse and quit pulling this false martyr crap, and debate that is if you can.
I really think all of your distraction, is only delay my discovery of your true depth of knowledge
You're attempt to force my argument into your wheelhouse, actually missing the point completely, your continued selective illiteracy, your ad hominem responses. These are signs that you have lost the debate.
If you wanted to debate you would, you apparently don't.
You time and time again have said how the guns don't matter, how it is the people who cause the crimes; about how banning guns won't reduce gun crimes; about how all the criminals will run wild with their guns when they are banned; and on and on. I don't have the energy for your nonsense anymore.
Sorry, but the world doesn't work in a way in which you get to decide what weapons the government has
But I assume you still want them to have some sophisticated bomb tech for wars, etc. right? If so, it is quite scary to me that you want civilians to be able to have that too. Newtown will be nothing if that happens- to me that is quite scary.
I know the founders intent with the 2nd amendment, but during their time there were no where near the sophistication and deadliness of the weapons we have today. It is a different ballgame. Without military/police personnel on the civilian side, I don't think a large scale revolt could work even if you had all the weapons they had (minus nukes). And if you have the military/police on the civilian side, you get the weapons with it
But again, I don't like that scenario. Again, times have changed a lot. The founders lived in the time where democracy was an infant and a much smaller portion of the world's people believed in its success. They were under greater threat of revolts, etc. We are at a stage where things are much more stable. We are also at a point in history where the usefulness of even pacifist movements has led to tremendous political change- even without escalation into war. I think there are better methods that starting a civil war even if we all decide to overthrow the government.
What a complete crock of "doo-doo." With every post it is clear to me that you have the conceit of a pretense of knowledge without the presence of wisdom.
Infantry weapons are infantry weapons. The armed citizenry is the antidote to oppressive standing armies. This is the reason for an armed citizenry. This is the reason for the Second Amendment.
You can think all you want. I encourage it. There are around 300 million weapons out here. And they are selling as fast as they can be stocked. Things are stable alright. We have a stable of Democrats who want to disarm us. What better excuse can there be than twenty murdered children?
Evil people with guns can only be stopped by better people with guns.
The humor you find in this...does not make my statement any less serious. It also does nothing to make the situation better.
Oh it was not meant in any disrespectful way it just made me laugh. I found it funny.
It is about reducing the statistical likelihood and in turn the actual amount of times this happens.
"IF" these events keep happening, we will continue to address the other causes. Much the way we deal with any other Dis-Ease.
Similar threads
