Greensboro citizen of gives a speech to city council about the gun show ban (video goes viral)

BoxingFan653

BoxingFan653

C-137
@Brown
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
4,497
Reaction score
2,599
Thoughts? Not the best platform for statistics or data but his argument is great IMHO

 
It's not a good argument. We don't generally make laws to regulate people that don't hurt other people and/ or don't hurt themselves.

Under this guy's argument, we should be allowed to own nukes. 99% of the population would be responsible nuke owners. They wouldn't use them to hurt other people. However, we don't allow private ownership of nukes because of the 1% of the population that would not be responsible nuke owners. That's the same 1% of the population that we have gun laws for.

90% of the population would be responsible crack smokers and not become addicted. However, we don't allow crack smoking because of the 10% that do become addicted.

Etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's Uncle Phil.
 
BoxingFan653 said:
Thoughts? Not the best platform for statistics or data but his argument is great IMHO

Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
superpunch said:
It's not a good argument. We don't generally make laws to regulate people that don't hurt other people and/ or don't hurt themselves.

Under this guy's argument, we should be allowed to own nukes. 99% of the population would be responsible nuke owners. They wouldn't use them to hurt other people. However, we don't allow private ownership of nukes because of the 1% of the population that would not be responsible nuke owners. That's the same 1% of the population that we have gun laws for.

90% of the population would be responsible crack smokers and not become addicted. However, we don't allow crack smoking because of the 10% that do become addicted.

Etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's Uncle Phil.
Click to expand...
<{cruzshake}>


No one is asking for nukes. Stop with the absurd nonsense.
 
Had he had the assistance of a recently summoned English teacher - or something along those lines - to craft a statement before-hand?

Perhaps then he could have integrated the obvious connection between nuclear weapons and the gun show loophole.
 
superpunch said:
It's not a good argument. We don't generally make laws to regulate people that don't hurt other people and/ or don't hurt themselves.

Under this guy's argument, we should be allowed to own nukes. 99% of the population would be responsible nuke owners. They wouldn't use them to hurt other people. However, we don't allow private ownership of nukes because of the 1% of the population that would not be responsible nuke owners. That's the same 1% of the population that we have gun laws for.

90% of the population would be responsible crack smokers and not become addicted. However, we don't allow crack smoking because of the 10% that do become addicted.

Etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's Uncle Phil.
Click to expand...
Didn't listen to guy's argument.
 
superpunch said:
It's not a good argument. We don't generally make laws to regulate people that don't hurt other people and/ or don't hurt themselves.

Under this guy's argument, we should be allowed to own nukes. 99% of the population would be responsible nuke owners. They wouldn't use them to hurt other people. However, we don't allow private ownership of nukes because of the 1% of the population that would not be responsible nuke owners. That's the same 1% of the population that we have gun laws for.

90% of the population would be responsible crack smokers and not become addicted. However, we don't allow crack smoking because of the 10% that do become addicted.

Etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's Uncle Phil.
Click to expand...
I'm headin down down to the local gun show to purchase as many nukes as I can before libs enact an anti-nu... Man, STFU!
 
bobgeese said:
He’s the lefts worst nightmare.
Click to expand...

Naw he'd have to be gay and trans for that

They can still attack him on being a straight cis male since they can't counter his argument
 
He was good till he compared .223 to a .22 long riffle. Should have left that part out. Over all I agree with him, of course we are all law abiding citizen till the moment we aren't.
 
superpunch said:
It's not a good argument. We don't generally make laws to regulate people that don't hurt other people and/ or don't hurt themselves.

Under this guy's argument, we should be allowed to own nukes. 99% of the population would be responsible nuke owners. They wouldn't use them to hurt other people. However, we don't allow private ownership of nukes because of the 1% of the population that would not be responsible nuke owners. That's the same 1% of the population that we have gun laws for.

90% of the population would be responsible crack smokers and not become addicted. However, we don't allow crack smoking because of the 10% that do become addicted.

Etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's Uncle Phil.
Click to expand...
Nukes aren't practical for individuals defense purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeonardoBjj
Social Justice Department claims TikTok collected U.S. user views on issues like abortion and gun control
Replies
10
Views
453
shunyata
shunyata

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,365
Messages
56,641,950
Members
175,324
Latest member
heathmill

Share this page

Back
Top