"Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3sYSj.1246$sp.1187@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:mHRSj.50$7k7.41@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >> By your logic, anyone should be allowed to own anything that could
>>>> >> possibly be used as a weapon. Where can I get myself a couple of
>>>> >> hand grenades?
No, by Scout's logic everyone law-abiding should be able to own
(and carry) the weapons commonly carried by criminals AND by
the police.
>>>> > Gun control: the theory that a 90lb woman has the rigbt to use her
>>>> > fists to fight off a 210lb rapist.
>>>>
>>>> Let's just number them, OK.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
>>>> 2. Criminals don't obey laws; why have them?
>>>> 3. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
>>>> and so on.
>>>
>>> Its good to see you've found a way to ignore the simple things. Fine,
>>> I'll do the whole spiel since you seem wholly incapable of filling in
>>> the blanks for yourself Without weapons, a small woman has no ability
>>> to defend herself against a large man. a pistol is capable of
>>> leveling the playing field between a 210lb man and a 90lb woman as few
>>> other weapons are capable of doing. Gun control robs her of any
>>> realistic op****tunity to actually defend herself.
>>
>> This is manifestly false. Handgun prohibition, as opposed to say,
>> registration, may do this.
>
> Registration.....registration...where have I heard that before.....oh,
> that's right...Wa****ngton DC where registration was used to impose a
> handgun
> prohibition.
Maybe in NY City? Oh, wait, they did it there too.
|
