3 ms·

> one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. What happened to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Are you saying that ATF shot

> one Board Patrol Agent died as a direct results of their actions. What happened to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Are you saying that ATF shot the Border Patrol Agent? Oh. I see. The mistake was that some Mexicans got guns. Obviously, without the ATF there is no way that Mexicans would be able to get guns. Right. But under that logic, failing to enact gun control makes the US government responsible for almost everyone killed with a gun in the US, since the relative lack of gun control both directly and indirectly results in more guns in hands, and therefore more guns in use, and therefore more people being shot. (For the record: I am against gun control, I just think your logic sucks) You ARE allowed to petition, but that isn't the same thing as whatever your complaint is about whitehouse.gov ... petitions vastly pre-existed whitehouse.gov. You seem to have forgotten the good old days when Reagan set up the Enterprise (an unaccountable shadow government with its own funding sources) and sold arms to our enemies, violating a US arms embargo, in order to fund a dirty war in Central America (another action violating US law). What great democracy that was!

joering2 14y ago
I read your response, but I will only partially bite on your bait. I don't know, and frankly don't care, why you assume I have forgotten about Reagan stunt. I hope you haven't forgotten that Constitution says that all men should be capable of being armed equally as the Government itself. Clearly we are not there anymore, but I hope we will never be in a situation where the only legal way of standing against burglar's .357 is with a plastic knife...
- redler 14y ago
  Without getting into the fact that you're heavily paraphrasing the second amendment, surely you're not suggesting that "all men" should be able to possess, like the government, surface-to-air missiles, 1000-ton bombs, or nuclear weapons. And if we are at least in agreement on this point, then on what basis is the line drawn between weapons like these and hunting rifles?

joering2 14y ago

I read your response, but I will only partially bite on your bait. I don't know, and frankly don't care, why you assume I have forgotten about Reagan stunt. I hope you haven't forgotten that Constitution says that all men should be capable of being armed equally as the Government itself. Clearly we are not there anymore, but I hope we will never be in a situation where the only legal way of standing against burglar's .357 is with a plastic knife...

redler 14y ago
Without getting into the fact that you're heavily paraphrasing the second amendment, surely you're not suggesting that "all men" should be able to possess, like the government, surface-to-air missiles, 1000-ton bombs, or nuclear weapons. And if we are at least in agreement on this point, then on what basis is the line drawn between weapons like these and hunting rifles?