In response to:

7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns

"7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns" Perhaps this articale is less stupid than it's title. But I doubt it, so I'm not bothering to read it. It is not hypocritical to call for gun control while being protected by guns. In fact, would it not be hypocritical to call for *a lack* of gun control, while you yourself are being protected by guns?
william704 Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 2:03 PM
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." --

Sigmund Freud
lcenter Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 12:26 PM
Just to be clear, you are saying that guns are for protection right? Well thank you! I see you do support the 2nd Amendment.
mlanstra Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 11:42 AM
Would love to know where you went to school. You obviously have no clue what hypocrite means. Please tell me what school so I can make sure my children never ever go there. I guess advocating for animal protection while eating a hamburger isn't hypocritical either. What kind of moron makes this kind of a statement. (It is not hypocritical to call for gun control while being protected by guns.) oh that was you who said that. Liberial thinking go figure
srice Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 7:15 AM
How can you comment about an article when you didn't read it?
Oh, silly me, you are a liberal, I DIDN'T READ THAT. Moran
scrow Wrote: Mar 23, 2013 10:07 PM
It is if you take the viewpoint noted by commentators and politicians (as well as common sense) that gun control without gun confiscation (or the threat therein) is inevitable.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Mar 23, 2013 11:01 PM
Heehee, I guess you mean that anyone who wants gun control wishes to consifcate all the guns. I'll let you figure out the proper wording of your sentene above.

I think that firearms should be kept away from insane people. Is that not gun control? Do YOU think so, too? Well that's gun control. I guess we must both want to confiscate everyones guns.
sean242 Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 3:00 AM
Depends on how one defines "insane". If the goal is to restrict arms from "insane" persons then it seems more like "insane person control". Would it be Ok for an "insane" person to have and carry swords?
Daniel982 Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 9:31 AM
Please provide an instance where the national registration of guns did NOT lead to confiscation.

Duke Nuk'em Wrote: Mar 23, 2013 7:53 PM
"Gun" control is not about guns.

One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened -- so that a man...