So what do Democrats think about this pic?

JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.AIIison

Doesn't mean much coming from a terrible president.

Doesn't mean much coming from a terrible president.

Quaker-w00ts

[QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"] Didn't we talk about this already? Also I haven't put any word in your mouth, your misguided notion that these things are the same is the only thing up for debate in this topic.

thegerg

Yes, you have. At least try to be honest here. You've not only accused me of advocating for "unlimited firearm distribution", but of "trying to use the fight for civil rights as a pretexted" for such a thing. If you want to have a real conversation you're going to have to stop making silly accusations and start being honest with the rest of us.

"your misguided notion that these things are the same is the only thing up for debate in this topic."

Civil rights are civil rights. To deny a person their civil rights because they were not educated is not acceptable to me.

YEE HAW

ristactionjakso

cowboy

[QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.surrealnumber5

Do you honestly think our military would go against it's own citizens? It's own families, friends? Nah, don't think so.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]also note: low crime rates and no mass shootings. But I guess we have car bombings to balance that outBossPerson

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Do you honestly think our military would go against it's own citizens? It's own families, friends? Nah, don't think so.

Lotus-Edge

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Do you honestly think our military would go against it's own citizens? It's own families, friends? Nah, don't think so.

ristactionjakso

ff there was no second amendment jfk would still be alive

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?comp_atkins

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Planeforger"]I do enjoy how your example of a pro-gun advocate was also one of the most famous gunshot victims of all time. I guess that makes my response "I'm fine with Americans keeping their guns, just as long as they're fine with being shot all the time".Planeforger

Assuming that there's an anology there (and that's shakey at best - cars are used publicly/guns privately; cars' death-dealing capacity is incidental to their central purpose/guns' central purpose is to kill; cars aren't used in many intentional killings/guns are; cars are used worldwide/guns tend to be banned or restircted in most first world counties; etc.)...people tend to be totally fine with laws designed to reduce car deaths.

There are strict regulations concerning what cars may be produced/sold, what cars people may drive, where people may drive, who is qualified to drive, what state of mind they have to be in before they get behind the wheel, etc. The whole system is strongly licenced, scrutinised and enforced, and particularly dangerous cars are quickly purged from the market.

Stronger car regulations could prevent more deaths from occurring, but at the same time some concessions need to be made to weaker drivers/unsafe cars, given the near-necessity of private transport in everyone's daily lives. The same argument for under-regulation couldn't easily be used in defence of guns.

Also, the original picture would be like using an image of Princess Diana in an endorsement for reducing car regulations. It wouldn't be particularly convincing.

*edit* To put it another way: if ridiculously fast sportscars started crashing into schoolbuses on a weekly basis, killing children with regular ease, would there be much of an outcry if the government tried to regulate sportscars more strongly, or ban those types of unsafe sportscar entirely?

In any case...that wasn't my main point at all. I was merely saying that I don't honestly care whether or not the USA ends up keeping or banning their guns, just as long as they don't act surprised or outraged at the natural and probable consequences of widespread gun ownership.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.-RocBoys9489-

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] do you really think everyone who owns a gun will be on the side against the government? comp_atkins

What does TC think of this picture?

What does TC think of this picture?

Chickity_China

[QUOTE="Quaker-w00ts"]

Doesn't mean much coming from a terrible president.

Moobopper

I didn't read books, I read documents and all these documents point to JFK not being a good president. All he did was TRY and reform civil rights.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

ff there was no second amendment jfk would still be alive

-RocBoys9489-

Look at Libya and Syria. Those people are armed to the teeth (very easy to get assault weapons in arab countries) and yet those revolutions would fail without air support. Syria is moving at a ultra slow pace because of the lack of air power

BossPerson

Well, said support wouldn't matter either w/o weapons on the ground, either, and Ghadaffi would still be chillin', for better or worse.

I'm pretty sure his opinions changed on the subject the second his head was removed by a bullet.

I now believe that JFK accidentally shot himself in the Oval Office and that the entire Dealey Plaza incident was faked with a JFK lookalike.

:|

JFK was a badass liberal (but he was an absolute man-whore); however, that was the 1960s and things were very different politically: The Dems were pro-interventionists, the GOP were pro-civil rights.

Things change.

[QUOTE="Moobopper"][QUOTE="Quaker-w00ts"]

Doesn't mean much coming from a terrible president.

Quaker-w00ts

I didn't read books, I read documents and all these documents point to JFK not being a good president. All he did was TRY and reform civil rights.

[QUOTE="Hakumen21"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I don't think anyone wants psychos to have guns, but to disallow someone their rights simply because they're uneducated is quite elitist and, honestly, disgusting. (What is quite ironic is that you misspell the word "uneducated" in a post in which you are saying that those people are somehow lesser than you.)thegerg

What do Republicans think about this graphic?

What do Republicans think about this graphic?

kabphillie

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

-RocBoys9489-

I'd say it is irrelevant in a pluralist liberal democracy, since the military is made up of your friends and neighbours and they aren't going to attack the population in the first place. So, it will be the civilian population + 95% of the military vs the (evil/tyrannical) government, whomever that is, and the 5% of the military that is too dumb to think for themselves including the 2% that are psycho or sociopaths.

This is because the real world isn't like a 1970s James Bond film populated with legions of disposable bad guys who ask no questions and blindly follow the charismatic but evil leader of a shadowy multi-letter organization like robots.

Indeed, the very nature of modern pluralist societies essentially guarantees that the armed forces of those societies will be among the first to reject tyranny.

What do Republicans think about this graphic?

kabphillie

Unsurprising.

should we be able to buy fighter jets?

BossPerson

I very much doubt JFK would have had that opinion if he knew that he was going to be killed by a loony with a gun a few years afterwards. Commander-Gree

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.Moobopper

[QUOTE="kabphillie"]

What do Republicans think about this graphic?

coolbeans90

Unsurprising.