Quote:
Originally posted by Chefranden
If what you say is true and the reason for not banning fire arms is self defense then everyone should carry - like in a Heinlein book. That means there will have to be gun subsidies for the poor to make it fair.
|
Boy, it sure stopped being "like a Heinlein book" really fast. Like in the very next sentence.
See here: it's nort my job to feed, clothe and house the poor, and it's not my job to arm them either. You've perhaps mistaken this for a socialist country. I do understand your confusion.
If you are in favor of arming the poor, do you support repealing the "make guns too expensive" type of prohibitionism? Like frivolous tax-funded liability suits against manufacturers, the "smart gun" (boy, there's a misnomer) requirement currently being proposed in the People's Republik of New Jersey, and the "Saturday Night Special" bans? Or are you only in favor of "arming the poor" when it's at taxpayer expense?
Quote:
The argument that people need to carry against random killers is absurd.
|
What's absurd is arguing that it's the *only* reason. I don't have fire extinguishers in my house *just* in case it's hit by lighting, but itf it *is* hit by lightning I'll be glad I have them..
Nonsense.
Quote:
The crime issue is meant to be divisive and it works. It helps keep the people from realizing they could band together to force the government to provide health care instead of cluster bombs for instance.
|
You really *are* a Socialist at heart.
The government doesn't "provide" anything. The taxpayers do. This is why they don't band together to insist the government "provide" health care...because so far enough of them still realize who will actually *pay* for it.