It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More gun talk. Does this really need a new thread? Perhaps.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Cars weren't designed to kill people... yet they do every day. By accident and on purpose.
Cars have license plates. Until you take them off. Or you change them out with your neighbors plates. Just like guns have serial numbers.

Cars are harder to get than guns? PLEASE give me some of whatever you're on.



Cars weren't designed to kill people. I think you better re-read that, think about it and digest it. And yes, they're called accidents for a reason. Wrong ball game there partner. Yes, you can remove a license plate but no one is going to do that in the heat of a homicidal meltdown.

And a yes to cars are harder to get than guns of you don't already have one. You' didn't think that through very well. Let's put this in perspective. You're going to run out and buy a car, spend a few hours looking, drop $850- $2000 (the cost of an AR15) Go through the credit check if you can't afford it. Then drop another $300 for insurance not to mention the vehicle inspection from a mechanic, another $100. Say all of this done in a span of about say, 6-8 hours. Drive it home, take off the plates then go mow over a crowd of people.
You can ask someone for their car which I doubt anyone would lend to you without a very good reason. Another pain in the arse.

Or you can walk to the corner and buy a gun. In/out.
Where to buy a gun cheap

Now what about all the other points I made?




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

haha. I understand how difficult it is to convey a perspective on this issue. But I would have to respectfully disagree with this analogy on one simple point. Spoons don't have moral obligations.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

haha. I understand how difficult it is to convey a perspective on this issue. But I would have to respectfully disagree with this analogy on one simple point. Spoons don't have moral obligations.


Actually it is not difficult at all.

For starters, you are comparing a product marketed to children to firearms that are not marketed to children.

And since when did firearms have a "moral obligation"? I am not aware of any inanimate object that has a "moral obligation" of any kind. People have a moral obligations, not objects.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by FlySolo

haha. I understand how difficult it is to convey a perspective on this issue. But I would have to respectfully disagree with this analogy on one simple point. Spoons don't have moral obligations.


Actually it is not difficult at all.

For starters, you are comparing a product marketed to children to firearms that are not marketed to children.

And since when did firearms have a "moral obligation"? I am not aware of any inanimate object that has a "moral obligation" of any kind. People have a moral obligations, not objects.



erm, that's exactly what the fat fellow is trying to say. He's trying to say sarcastically that spoons = gun shop owners.You kind of just made my point you know?

As for my initial post, I have already explained it's a matter of priorities. Not the candy per se.
edit on 20-12-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join