In article <20060210183329.K12205@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, xeno says...
>It doesn't follow that if you're not allowed to do somthing that
therefore
>it doesn't matter that you need to do something. But, your assertion
>doesn't answer the question. There is no need for an assault weapon to go
>hunting unless you're planning on slaughtering a vast number of whatever
>you allege to hunt. & if you need an assault weapon to go voting then
>voting is not likely going to change the cir***stances that requires you
>to vote with an assault weapon.
1. Can you define for everyone what an "assault weapon" is?
2. I don't hunt. Therefore the hunting utility of any firearm is utterly
irrelevant to me.
3. Why does anyone "need" to HUNT?
4. In fact, it's perfectly legal to hunt using a Kalashnikov or an AR15,
so long
as you follow the applicable game laws of your state. In fact, AR15s are
extremely popular as varmint rifles.
5. If there's no physical danger to taking away the vote (or any other
right),
then it's much more likely that that right WILL be taken away...
>> Again, why do you need to hunt OR vote?
>
>That's a stupid question. People hunt for food or s****t. People vote to
>make decisions.
People also shoot for gun, and for practice for self-defense. You don't
seem to
be able to actually explain why I shouldn't have an AR15. People vote to
make
decisions that they don't necessarily understand, or which don't accord
with the
teaching of the prophet... or at least that's what Abu Musab al Zarqawi
says.
Your argument for me not having an AR15 is certainly no better than al
Zarqawi's
argument for me not being able to vote.
>> Of course the last time I hunted, I hunted North Koreans, and I had an
>> assault rifle.
>
>Normally, when people refer to hunting, they're not talking about other
>human beings. Now, maybe you're proud of being a sociopath but you may
>consider it problematical.
Hunting people who are illegally in a foreign country to spy, destroy
things and
murder people isn't generally considered "sociopathic"... except by the
perpetrators. I'm sure that Kim Jong Il certainly objects to people who
impede
the operations of the DPRK Army Light Infantry Brigades.
But again, the last thing I hunted was North Koreans. The hunting utility
of a
firearm is utterly irrelevant to me.
>If you have to resort to bringing a firearm to vote, then voting is not
>likely going to change those cir***stances. & one person being so armed
is
>a lot less effective than a militia, or an army.
It it's not dangerous to take your vote, then there's little disencentive
to do
so.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.
|
