deconstructing defence by pro-arms people

first let me make it clear that i am a centrist on right to bear arms.
but i hear many pro-gun members making irrational arguments in defence of their views like- a knife can also kill anyone as can a baseball bat, you know the rest.
so, if knives and baswball bats are comparable to guns in ease of killing others then they should be as comparable in defence. therefore in that case, you should have no problem if the government replaces your guns with knives and baseball bats as your rants imply.
are you going to accept that or not??? if knives and guns are equally destructive in the hands of pshycos then one could be replaced by another. so give me a single rational argument to refute my theory other than the constitutional one.
i am sure the government would be ready to accept my proposal, a knife or a baseball bat for a gun.

reply to post by deepankarm


All of the items mentioned are inanimate objects. When the government puts down their guns and replaces them with knives and baseball bats, then we can talk. Until then, I will be equally armed as the law enforcement officers that have the power to harm me and my property. Checks and balances.

reply to post by deepankarm


Your thread title is misleading.How can you deconstruct such a complicated issue with just one point? even worse ,one that makes no sense.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by deepankarm

 

All of the items mentioned are inanimate objects. When the government puts down their guns and replaces them with knives and baseball bats, then we can talk. Until then, I will be equally armed as the law enforcement officers that have the power to harm me and my property. Checks and balances.

edit on 15-12-2012 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)

and it is a logical argument. duh.
yeah, they are inanimate, so what???
if guns don't kill people and neither the baseball bats, then what does it matter if guns are replaced by knives other than you will appear as a housewife rather than a cowboy.

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by deepankarm

 

Your thread title is misleading.How can you deconstruct such a complicated issue with just one point? even worse ,one that makes no sense.

edit on 15-12-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

what it takes to deconstruct a view which has no substantial basis. i am not opposed to the pro-gunners but sometimes their illogical arguments make me laugh.

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by deepankarm

 

Your thread title is misleading.How can you deconstruct such a complicated issue with just one point? even worse ,one that makes no sense.

edit on 15-12-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

what it takes to deconstruct a view which has no substantial basis. i am not opposed to the pro-gunners but sometimes their illogical arguments make me laugh.

But you argument is the most illogical ive ever read on the subject. Im not putting you down but it sounds like something a 4 year old would come up with. Its completely ridiculas.

do not allow blind public "something must be done" panicking outcries to lead the US down the road that the UK has gone.

keep your 2nd amendment rights, bear your arms, do not give in to fear, this is exactly what they want.

Our useless MPs caved in to a minority petition of around 700,000, but mainly from MSM pressure after Dunblane and has it altered anything? Violent crime is on the rise, police have to wear protective vests. they are now considering the vests for our paramedics as the level of attacks on them is spiralling out of control.

I am getting sick of these ill thought out, and fallacious threads angled at reaping stars and flags but presenting no rationale
This is obviously an immature and poorly constructed argument which makes very little sense.
Your grab at the S&Fs goes unrewarded by me.......grow up

reply to post by deepankarm


I doubt anyone is arguing that the level of lethality is equal. They're not. The problem with your argument, however, is that those same people do not want to be put in a situation where they have to defend their families against a gun-wielding perpetrator when they themselves are armed with only a knife or baseball bat. That's a near-guaranteed negative outcome.

And that's the reality you would consign us to. Understand something: you will *never* rid this country of illegally obtained firearms. There are tens, if not hundreds of millions of them floating around out there in the hands of criminals throughout this country and they are NOT going to turn them in. The only effect a gun ban would have would be to disarm the responsible, law abiding owner. The thugs would be the only ones left with guns.

Its about not seeing people as animals but as human beings who are capable of self-responsible and free choice. You give someone a gun...will he use it responsibly or not? You cant legislate absolute safety unless you build a totalitarian dictatorship.

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by deepankarm

 

All of the items mentioned are inanimate objects. When the government puts down their guns and replaces them with knives and baseball bats, then we can talk. Until then, I will be equally armed as the law enforcement officers that have the power to harm me and my property. Checks and balances.

edit on 15-12-2012 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)

and it is a logical argument. duh.
yeah, they are inanimate, so what???
if guns don't kill people and neither the baseball bats, then what does it matter if guns are replaced by knives other than you will appear as a housewife rather than a cowboy.

It matters because those in power will still have guns