Las Vegas mass shooting

QMany said:
I don't know if I see it that way.

I think they are conceding a very small battle, probably not worth fighting, and feigning real cooperation in hopes of winning the bigger war.
Click to expand...
I believe that before when this issue came up, they fought against banning them.  I could be wrong.  But, that's what I understood.

Now, 59 people dead and 527 injured and it's...."Oh s#!t........we gotta throw out a bone and try to fend off the wolves right now because we are going to come under fire" (pun intended).

 
BigRedBuster said:
What if by NOT buying a gun through the GII you knew you were going to die by the effects of not owning one?
Click to expand...
Still wouldn't be an infringement on my right.  

Just because I don't believe something to be a right, doesn't mean I don't think that society doesn't have an obligation to help.

 
Dbqgolfer said:
Yep, kind of like the cost of a Mercedes prohibits me from owning one, but it isn't an infringement on my right to own one.
Click to expand...
I get that but I'm asking about what you're calling a right, which luxury car ownership is not. Even car ownership is not a right.

Is your stance that there's no price at which your rights have been taken away even if it means the price is so high that only a fraction of the population could afford it? Like if guns started at $100k or $1 million.

 
Dbqgolfer said:
Still wouldn't be an infringement on my right.  

Just because I don't believe something to be a right, doesn't mean I don't think that society doesn't have an obligation to help.
Click to expand...
So......

If you know you and society know you are going to die if you don't get something, that doesn't some how relate to:

The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 
Back
Top