DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - New record: 10.8million firearms sold in 2011

**thakitt** · 01-07-2012, 09:58 PM

see, this is where you freak out because you are irrational. No where have I said we should disarm the population. Not allowing arsenals would not disarm the nation. It would simply limit the number to a reasonable 4-5 guns per person. That is not disarming anyone. It is just getting rid of unnecessary weapons caches that are no where near as secure as they should be and coinflips at best that they won't one day be stolen. You know, the type thing our soldiers do to the countries we invade to make them safe. I am not against guns. I am against arsenals. I see a constitutional right to bare arms, not horde them.

Please enlighten me as to why 4 or 5 guns per person is "reasonable"? Why not 100 or 1000? I can only shoot one at a time effectively, so the number of firearms I own doesn't make me any more dangerous. The firearm itself is not the problem, it's the person behind it. Firearms don't load, aim, or fire themselves the last time I checked. [rolleyes] The last time I checked, criminals don't follow laws, so they wouldn't be limited by your restrictions. They'll just go and buy as many as they want on the black market, completed unimpeded, while limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Very simply, criminals break laws. Your argument centers around limiting the rights of people who are not breaking laws, so that's right, you don't give a damn about crime, and your argument is nothing but a farce. You simply want to push a veiled agenda to limit the rights of people who have different ideals from you, so cut the bull**** and say it like it is. I'd respect you and your ilk more if you wouldn't hide your true agenda.

01-07-2012, 09:58 PM	#16
thakitt Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 555 Senior Member	see, this is where you freak out because you are irrational. No where have I said we should disarm the population. Not allowing arsenals would not disarm the nation. It would simply limit the number to a reasonable 4-5 guns per person. That is not disarming anyone. It is just getting rid of unnecessary weapons caches that are no where near as secure as they should be and coinflips at best that they won't one day be stolen. You know, the type thing our soldiers do to the countries we invade to make them safe. I am not against guns. I am against arsenals. I see a constitutional right to bare arms, not horde them. Please enlighten me as to why 4 or 5 guns per person is "reasonable"? Why not 100 or 1000? I can only shoot one at a time effectively, so the number of firearms I own doesn't make me any more dangerous. The firearm itself is not the problem, it's the person behind it. Firearms don't load, aim, or fire themselves the last time I checked. [rolleyes] The last time I checked, criminals don't follow laws, so they wouldn't be limited by your restrictions. They'll just go and buy as many as they want on the black market, completed unimpeded, while limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens. Very simply, criminals break laws. Your argument centers around limiting the rights of people who are not breaking laws, so that's right, you don't give a damn about crime, and your argument is nothing but a farce. You simply want to push a veiled agenda to limit the rights of people who have different ideals from you, so cut the bull**** and say it like it is. I'd respect you and your ilk more if you wouldn't hide your true agenda.
	Quote