Originally posted by newcovenant
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by newcovenant
This isn't true. None of it.
Nice concise retort. You just disproved it all with that well written statement.
How can you balance the death of children with the fear of government takeover?
There is no way to balance two mutually exclusive things.
What is mutually exclusive?
What cancels the other out?
and it just gets worse from there. Besides...
It's all your opinion. You are entitled to it. I am not going to change your mind and facts don't seem to matter. You could have looked up this
yourself instead of whining...."why don't you tell him...?" Why don't you try a simple search? Because it is easier to call someone a liar
first... right? What great character you show. Cartoon.
It is impossible to put laws in place that will, in any reliable way, prevent such tragedy as this one where innocent children were killed, that will
not make it possible for a government take control of the lives of it’s citizens. The point of regulation that would be required to achieve a
reliable STOP of someone wanting to do that, would be far beyond the point where people would have no privacy or any other rights left. The rest of my
post is the logic behind that statement.
Sometimes, things are so logically simple to the reader that references to prove that self evident relation is not needed. That is what level of logic
I was trying to break it down to, so it would be self evident to everyone reading.
Lets take a look at one portion of my post you say “is not true”.
“The trampling of the 4th that you so decry is one of the very thing that helps the government to stop things like this from happening.”
The forth is the amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
Is it safe to say ….
A government that does not respect the law against unreasonable search and seizure will find it a lot easier to find “items designed to hurt
people” that people are hiding in their homes.
For, if they can search the place on a whim that he may be hiding something, then they will be more likely to search a place, and thusly, be a lot
more likely to find something that someone may be building to kill people with.
Thusly, if the government tramples the fourth amendment, it will be easier for them to catch people that want to hurt people with things they are
If those statements are false, please tell me where that logic breaks down.
All my other statement in the post you called “false” are logically thought out just like that. If you see any failures in my logic, just point
Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean it’s not true.
About 40% of gun sales are made without a background check to see if the purchaser is a criminal or otherwise prohibited from buying
How does that equate to….” 40 percent of gun sales are illegal”?
That statement is designed to draw alarm where none is warranted. They are saying that 40 percent of sales are person to person where no background
checks are not required. Again, that does not mean that 40 percent are illegal.
Again, basic logical conflict. Something that is not regulated by law, can not be illegal.
Just because a group says that something is illegal, does not mean it is.
If they want to imply that it is, that is their problem. Their argument has just lost touch with logic and reality.
The problem I keep seeing in the gun control debate is people that are totally detached from logic. They are not thinking with their mind, they are
thinking with their hearts. That is why I keep trying to interject hard logic into the debate, in an attempt to point out why their ideas can not
The problem is people are so used to being led around by the media, with their hearts, that they are unable to turn on their mind.