Anti-gun article over at Vanderbilt

Status
Not open for further replies.
Liberal Minds are Simple Minds....Trying to reason with the brainwashed is useless.

If it were up to the Anti-Gun mentality. They would prefer hearing, and knowing killings/murders were commited with razor sharp objects. Than something that goes BANG!
 
Last edited:
I couldn't get past this part:

A supporter of gun rights might counter: what if someone doesn't want to rob you, but really wants to kill you? To this I would say that it's not realistically possible to defend yourself against a psychopath who really wants to kill you at any cost, armed with only your wits and a pistol. You would need an army of gangsters, or the Secret Service, on your side. In other words, you would need the government (or a similar organization) to step in and protect you.
Click to expand...

without laughing.

Sure. He says he supports 'gun rights'. But at the same time he thinks the government's job is to protect me, so I shouldn't carry. Silly rabbit. So the logical conclusion is that people should accept being defenseless. I want to take this kid's lunch money

Also a brilliant example of only answering questions a writer wants to answer. Then again, a lot of college kids know they have seen it all from attending college, and their perceptions are reality for them- and for me, according to this one person at least
 
Besides being absolute drivel, it is logically inconsistent.

While I do not dispute a citizen's right to self-defense, I believe this right comes with important complications, which render a general policy of gun control prudent.
Click to expand...
The writer begins with the premise a citizen has a right to self defense but then contradicts that premise by claiming it is limited due to "important complications."

It goes downhill from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top