True. Only the very short sighted try to ban something because, "no one needs it." Those people will find out soon enough that something they like is now banned because, "no one needs it." Who wants to live is a dystopian society like Equilibrium or Minority Report?
Giffords Seeks Restrictions/Ban on Muzzleloaders
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
True. Only the very short sighted try to ban something because, "no one needs it." Those people will find out soon enough that something they like is now banned because, "no one needs it." Who wants to live is a dystopian society like Equilibrium or Minority Report?
I've sometimes fantasized that during a gun debate after the anti folk self-righteously proclaim, with derision dripping from their voice:
"No one needs an ASSAULT WEAPON to hunt deer."
That the pro-gun folk would start softly chanting "no one needs, no one needs" and then one after another folk would stand up and name stuff off like,
"Red Meat! It clogs arteries!"
"Private Planes! They're playtoys of the rich!"
"Private Swimming Pools! They're death traps!"
"Motorcycles! They're two-wheeled death traps!"
"Bicycles that cost more than $200!"
"Sailboats! They're playtoys of the rich!"
"Alcohol! Oh, yeah, we tried that but ban it anyway, except for wine!"
"Children! The planet's over crowded!"
I'd like to see the same thing happen when the anti folk get on their 'Just One Life' kick.
"No one needs..."
forget playtoys of the rich, when someone brings up "no one needs" and therefor it should be banned, hit them where they live.
Ask them how much money they make.
(ok, yes, one can shot holes in this argument, but once it's out there, people will think about it...)
Ask them how much money they make, and are they willing to surrender everything over minimum wage??
Since the state has seen fit to set minimum wages, then it follows that the state recognizes the set minimum as the minimum amount a person NEEDS.
OR, calculate the value of all state "minimum assistance" such as welfare and food stamps, etc. That is another "minimum needs" level set by the state.
SO, if "no one needs" something, and therefore it should be banned, ALL the money that they make ABOVE minimum wage should be banned, and therefore surrendered to the govt, right????
Anything else is a double standard, right??
SO, if they object to giving up their money (above what is "needed") then, at the very least, you can accuse them of supporting an double standard!!!
Basic human needs are very small, enough calories to prevent starvation and enough shelter (including clothing) to prevent death from exposure. Over and above that, its ALL a matter of wants.
When some idiot brings it up, and thinks it is ok to ban something because he thinks I don't "need" it, remind them that if they can do that, then I can ban something I don't think they "need", after all, its only fair, right??
Or, if you don't want to use minimum wage, use something else. ANYTHING that they like, and enjoy, because, after all no one needs...xxxxxx...
I can use my personal income. It's less than $25K a year. I manage to live on it, (though not as well as I might wish, but I do manage) THEREFORE, NO ONE needs more money than that. Right?
And by their own argument, things no one "needs" should be taken away by the government. So, when they give up their cash, I'll consider giving up my "assault weapon".
Consider....
Yes, it is a flawed and sarcastic argument, but since they don't seem to feel they are constrained to follow the rules of logic, why shouldn't we, on occasion feed them back the same level of argument they use??
And yes, expect them to counter with the claim that "my money doesn't kill anyone!!!"
well, NEITHER DOES MY GUN!!!!
forget playtoys of the rich, when someone brings up "no one needs" and therefor it should be banned, hit them where they live.
Ask them how much money they make.
(ok, yes, one can shot holes in this argument, but once it's out there, people will think about it...)
Ask them how much money they make, and are they willing to surrender everything over minimum wage??
Since the state has seen fit to set minimum wages, then it follows that the state recognizes the set minimum as the minimum amount a person NEEDS.
OR, calculate the value of all state "minimum assistance" such as welfare and food stamps, etc. That is another "minimum needs" level set by the state.
SO, if "no one needs" something, and therefore it should be banned, ALL the money that they make ABOVE minimum wage should be banned, and therefore surrendered to the govt, right????
Anything else is a double standard, right??
SO, if they object to giving up their money (above what is "needed") then, at the very least, you can accuse them of supporting an double standard!!!
Basic human needs are very small, enough calories to prevent starvation and enough shelter (including clothing) to prevent death from exposure. Over and above that, its ALL a matter of wants.
When some idiot brings it up, and thinks it is ok to ban something because he thinks I don't "need" it, remind them that if they can do that, then I can ban something I don't think they "need", after all, its only fair, right??
Or, if you don't want to use minimum wage, use something else. ANYTHING that they like, and enjoy, because, after all no one needs...xxxxxx...
I can use my personal income. It's less than $25K a year. I manage to live on it, (though not as well as I might wish, but I do manage) THEREFORE, NO ONE needs more money than that. Right?
And by their own argument, things no one "needs" should be taken away by the government. So, when they give up their cash, I'll consider giving up my "assault weapon".
Consider....
Yes, it is a flawed and sarcastic argument, but since they don't seem to feel they are constrained to follow the rules of logic, why shouldn't we, on occasion feed them back the same level of argument they use??
And yes, expect them to counter with the claim that "my money doesn't kill anyone!!!"
well, NEITHER DOES MY GUN!!!!