In response to:

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?

Loyal Democrat Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:46 AM
Guns supposedly make foes equal in a hostile encounter; a frail woman can take down a giant of a man who is attempting rape if she has the right firepower. But is her ability to defend herself worth the price of having the public armed? Isn't it better to permit the weak to be assaulted, robbed, and raped if it means the govt can maintain control over the populace? As long as the public is armed, politicians must continue to beg for votes to remain in power; this is demeaning for those who are more enlightened than the common trash that comprises the electorate. The better people have an inherent right to rule as they know is best, for it is a fact that the average citizen cannot make correct decisions on anything.
Loyal Democrat Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 6:46 AM
The common class cannot survive without direction from the ruling class, yet the commoners wish to meddle in the directives handed down from those who know what is best for them.

If we were wise enough to recognize the benefits of having a ruling class that totally controls the common people, we would enthusiastically promote disarming the people. That way, the ruling class could crush anyone who offers criticism or interference with the directives that are in the best interest of the collective as a whole. If some common people are violated as a result, that is a small price to pay. The loss of some common people is insignificant if the collective is better off as a result.
crs2000 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:05 AM
you are either part of them... or you wrote this to wake up others... for this is the real them...

us low life.... taking care of the ruling class... for THEY ARE SO SO SMart... really... smart... with ZERO common sense ... ZERO wisdom.... ZERO ... GOD IN THEIR LIVES>.. >>> YES we know WHO YOU REALLY SERVE... yes... the father of Lies... you will see how that works out for you in heaven... yes... you go ... you know where... no heaven... yes...
Reed42 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:11 AM
Dear LD,
The founders wrote the second "being necessary for a free state" as a reason. You Democrats know that a police state (opposite of a free state) is much better for the ruling class. The fact that a police state never goes well for the citizens is of no concern for them.
Capd4d Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:17 AM
Chestertonfan Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:21 AM
LD, you did it again. Nice job.
Dan107 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:35 AM
That concept is so 14th century, LD. Socialism does have all the characteristics of a feudal system, doesn't it?
Joesolis Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 9:41 AM
Yea! LD is back! crs2000, LD is the master of satire. Treasure him.
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the...