Brady Campaign Hoping For Expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban
- Kommander
- Posts: 3761
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:13 am
Re: Brady Campaign Hoping For Expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban
Arkythehun in all fairness he did answer my question, read the post just below mine.
- Combat Controller
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5190
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:03 am
Re: Brady Campaign Hoping For Expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban
Gun control is racist, and there is plenty of historical proof.
Winner of the prestigious Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года award for excellence in rural travel.
- Frankingun
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:03 am
Re: Brady Campaign Hoping For Expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban
Spells is saying that we need more convincing arguments that will appeal to most of the hoplophobe population. WE know that a .38 snubbie with low velocity hardball won't take out an enraged powerlifter or drug runners that employ ex-military/police. They just think we're nuts. My brother thinks I'm crazy because I have 19 guns. I KNOW I don't have enough...Spells wrote:Ag, I don't know where you got the impression I support an AWB. I specifically said I don't. My problem is the arguments the NRA puts forth in that article seem designed to raise money, not convince voters.
I'm saying that anti-gun people interpret the Constitution differently, and undecideds don't care what the founding fathers wrote. They aren't strict constructionists, or they wouldn't be undecided. If you want to persuade those people, talking about 350 pound powerlifting meth addicts and civilians needing artillery to fight Mexican drug cartels is maybe not the best way to go. The vast majority of the electorate is never going to have any first hand experience with either.You claim that basing an argument based on the Constitution is insufficient. Given your politics, I presume you'd reject similar arguments based on the writings of any of the FF.

- Lokidude
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:49 am
Re: Brady Campaign Hoping For Expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban
A classic from Marko. More eloquent than I could ever manage.Erik wrote:What it would do is to give the strongest person, or gangs, the advantage.
Any big thug that is used to beating people up would easily pick victims that are smaller, and be totally safe in attacking them, knowing they will be defenseless.
Smaller persons, handicapped, and elderly person would have no practical way to defend themselfes. A club is not going to help much if the person using it isn't strong enough to do much damage with it.
That's the essence of why gun control is immoral, even in the perfect world where gun control would remove any firearm from the face of the earth. It denies the physically weaker person any practical way to defend themselfes.
Standing for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!workinwifdakids wrote: We've thus far avoided the temptation to jack an entire forum.
But what the hell.