On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says...
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Wayne B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:
I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.
====
Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.
Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.
----------------------------------------
Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.
Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.
Read some DeToqueville
You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the
population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you
pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private.
Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville.
It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion,
the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other
things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of
liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the
community which he lived."
If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion,
thanks to the radicalization of the right.