Amy Shumer is anti-gun
Added on March 6th, 2016 by jiuyuelishixinnian | Report Post
Tags:Amy Schumer, Politics, Wallpaper, WTF
Tags:Amy Schumer, Politics, Wallpaper, WTF
-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Counterpoint: cars are not designed explicitly to kill, and there are far more cars than guns (this is a good thing).
Sorry, there’s more guns in the US then there are automobiles. It is estimated that there’s 270 million guns in total in the US. 254.4 million Automobiles in the US.
Counter-Counterpoint: Firearms are not explicitly designed to kill either (that’s Terminal Ballistics which is a function of the Ammunition) and some of them are explicitly designed NOT to kill (look up the design criteria of the hated by the Media M16/AR15 sometime).
Also, there are about 260 Million Registered Vehicles in the United States (including Police and other Government Vehicles)and a lower estimate of 340 Million Firearms in the United States (there is almost certainly more, most likely a LOT more).
So even though there are only 75% as many Vehicles as Guns, they still manage to kill Six Times the Number of People. It would appear that if Firearms Designers are trying to “explicitly” design something to Kill, they sure aren’t doing a very good Job…
Waaah. Waaah. Cars kill people too. Seriously? This bullshit affront to logic and thought again? Jeeeezus Christ! Motherfucker, the day you can drive your gun to work is the day you may actually have a gawddammed point.
Why Padre,
I couldn’t agree with you more. To Hold an inanimate device responsible for the actions of those misusing it is surely an affront to Logic and Thought.
Perhaps instead of vilifying said devices we should instead hold those who misuse those devices accountable? That however would not be Politically Correct, therefore Logic and Thought MUST be dispensed with.
Gun & rifle ownership continues as per 2nd amendment.
Purchase requires background check against felons and mentally disturbed.
No assault rifles or semi-automatics.
Mandatory safety locks, by key, combo, or fingerprint, blue-tooth, whatever.
Gun license test similar to driver’s license.
Why not?
I LOVE these “Common Sense” Proposals, because they aren’t:
“Continues as per 2nd Amendment”, what part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand because everything that Statement is an Infringement.
Felons, does that include Males who have been accused (not convicted) of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence (funny how Women never are affected by this unless the Male ends up in the ICU)? How about Non-Violent Offenders who have fully served their Sentence and have made Restitution. Who decides what “Mentally Disturbed” means? If it’s bad enough that you don’t trust them with a Gun, why are they still on the Street?
What exactly is an “Assault Rifle”, it seems to be Media-Speak for “that rifle scares me”. I can take a Ruger 10/22 and with out changing how it works, just how it looks, make it Illegal to posses in every State with an “Assault Rifle/Weapon” Law.
Why no Semi-Automatics? The VAST Majority of all Firearms sold are Semi-Automatic. All Semi-Automatic means is that after you’ve pulled the Trigger and Fired a Round, that when you release the Trigger and pull it again that it will fire another Round. Are you planning on placing the same Restriction on the Police and other Non-Military Government Agencies? If not, why not?
Mandatory Safety Locks? Who or what are you trying to make “Safe”? Why, when I need my Gun NOW are you making it so that I have to Fumble to be able to use it? Do “Mandatory Safety Locks” give the Police the “Justification” to, unannounced, enter my home or place of business and “Inspect”? You are aware that every “Mandatory Safety Lock” Law would require Locks on such things as Paintball Guns, Nerf and Airsoft Guns and, as has happened, Wrist Rocket Sling Shots and Bows and Arrows? There is a Reason Massachusetts has to rewrite their Gun Lock Law.
Who writes your “Gun License Test”, the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.)? Or does it get written by NRA or the same people who write the Tests for people getting Concealed Carry Permits?
As an Intellectual Exercise, take what you want to do with Guns and do the same things with Cars, Computers, Cell Phones, Alcohol, Books or whatever, and see it it still makes “Common Sense”.
A reasoned rebuttal. It answered why not. I respect that. Some Straw Man thrown in (police, Nerf guns, exercises), but not a rant.
It is difficult to drawing lines on behavior but I challenge you to valiantly tolerate that uncomfortable ambiguous range. It’s not the all or nothing. The world is filled with shades of gray and color.
The intent is disallowing convicted criminals or mentally incompetent gun access.
The intent is allowing self-defense and hunting, without raging mayhem.
The intent is fast access without free access.
The intent is a license to promote knowledgeable safe use for yourself and others.
One answer is “No rules” because compromise implies restrictions and a loss of rights. Those who lost loved ones due to firearm tragedy have answers as well. Laws can be written to the intent, not the exceptions.
Imagine, the extra cost for the biometric lock kept your intruder from using your own gun against you. It kept your neighbor (child or otherwise) from breaking through your window, and taking your weapon on a murderous rampage.
Your Straw Man would say this: I am fine with my next-door neighbor having firearms, regardless of criminal past or mental health. I support the ability of my neighbor to kill multiple people in a burst. My neighbor’s life is too valuable to delay even a few seconds for access to their firearms. My neighbor shouldn’t have to pass any license or exam on safe firearm use. I consider an abuse of my rights if anyone challenged me for bringing my loaded firearm into their home, work, theater, school, or park.
Before you pledge your community loyalty to your neighbors, have a look at this: www.familywatchdog.us/
Now, to take the offense: Gun restrictions do not infringe on the 2nd amendment. Bearing arms is only relevant in the context of a securing a militia, ratified 154 years before the US leveled Hiroshima in 1945, or the 2016 $767.3 billion military budget. A militia is no longer relevant, nor its bearing arms to support it. A gun is a specific tool. Its purpose is to hunt, for self-defense, and to kill. Gun restrictions that allow the first two yet hamper the third are, as you put it, common sense.
guns dont kill people
people kill people
Guns don’t kill people.
People with guns kill people.
*throws big rock at gropegropes head*
since 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides , how about you not deny them the choice
I think this is an excellent argument in favor of riding you gun to work.