Which is a more important right?

[dead0man]

People can have rifles and shotguns, but handguns and assault weapons cannot be bought or sold to civilians.

Does that mean I can or cannot keep my gun? It happens to be a rifle and an "assault weapon" simultaneously.

You expect a gun control nut to be knowledgeable about guns?  They aren't, and they've even argued that they don't have to.  They know what's right...damnit....facts are meaningless to them.  (like the fact that more Americans die from fists than from rifles)

[dead0man]

People can have rifles and shotguns, but handguns and assault weapons cannot be bought or sold to civilians.

Does that mean I can or cannot keep my gun? It happens to be a rifle and an "assault weapon" simultaneously.

You expect a gun control nut to be knowledgeable about guns?  They aren't, and they've even argued that they don't have to.  They know what's right...damnit....facts are meaningless to them.  (like the fact that more Americans die from fists than from rifles)

I knew what an assault rifle was before your patronizing, semantic comment (that was not at all a logical refutation of my argument above,) but thanks, though.

but that's not even what you said.....this must be very confusing for you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea where breitbart came into this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and I never suggested otherwise

You must be logged in to read this quote.

is there?  A 30.06 does much more damage than an AR-15, and can be fired nearly as fast.  But that doesn't really matter here, what matter is that ALL rifles, including the scary ones, kill just a few hundred Americans a year.  I know it seems wrong, what with all the talk of banning AWB and the crying over the AR15, they just don't kill that many people.  Sorry if that's disappointing to some of you.



and did someone really just say a "hunting rifle" fires 10 times slower than an AR15?   uggggg, you guys are SOOOOOO not good at this.

[dead0man]

Yeah, maybe there are 400 people killed by rifles in the US each year.  Which still makes them a tiny fraction of all murders.  1/4 of the people killed by sharp things.  Half as many as are killed with body parts.

Rifles, even the scary looking ones, don't kill that many people, it doesn't matter how much you might want them to.  Banning a fraction of those to make some of you feel better is a bad idea, just like it was in the 90s.

[dead0man]

And back to my original point - what is the purpose of the state if not to protect people from dying?

that's not the purpose of the state and I find it a little odd you think that it is.  Is this a normal theory on the left?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it's an either or?  We can't strive for something in the middle?


(you do get bonus points for bringing up Somalia as a horrible example in a thread that hasn't mentioned "libertarian"...that's a new one!)