This did not originate with Mr. Sheneman. If you have been reading the posts the past few weeks, you’ll see a pattern. A number of posters have mentioned that there should be no more laws, no more background checks, no more anything, because criminals break the law. Actually, many of them went as far as to call some of us ugly names because we were too stupid to understand that criminals would not undergo background checks, criminals would not buy arms legally, and on and on.
Even Mr. LaPierre had a now-famous discussion with John Oliver on the Daily Show, where Mr. Oliver made the same point, except substituting the word “drugs” for “guns”, and got Mr. LaPierre to almost agree to the idea that there is no reason for drug laws because drug users don’t obey them.
The argument can be used for anything, including stop signs. Of course, it’s silly to use it for stop signs, drunk driving, no-trespassing signs, or anything else. But evidently it’s not silly when it comes to guns.
Some conclusions are just bankrupt, and that’s one of them. Tigger, I’m glad you got the point. Ain’t satire great when it fits just right?
Drew has merely drawn, EXACTLY the argument the NRA and “gun nuts” have clung to. “Laws don’t work or stop criminals”. Right. Eliminate all laws, Congress, state legislators, police, fire departments, EMT’s and all those other folks on the “government dole” bleeding all those hard working folks at Mickey D’s dry! (Of course, don’t tax corporations or the super wealthy at the same rate (actually paid) because that would be “evil” and “socialist”!
The right wing motto so they don’t have to do background checks on guns. And then when the next shooting happens blame people with no guns rather than how that crazy person got a hold of one in the first place.
If you use liberal distorted logic to prove a point, and gun control seemed reasonable because criminals use guns, how about – background checks for auto purchases, since criminals use autos to get away, and even to kill people in their way – background checks for beer and alcohol purchases, since criminals have often been using these substances prior to committing their crimes – and, since there are so many politicians that have been guilty of crimes, maybe we should do away with the government, and eliminate all of those criminals’ high paying jobs.
“What about ‘Shall not be infringed’?”What about it?“You’re also cherry picking the 2nd Amendment”Yeah, you hate that “well regulated” part, don’t you, Tigger?
“Prove it”Tigger, I’ll say it again…You NEVER respond when someone challenges you to back up what you say. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen you running away with your tail between your legs. So what gives you the right to demand that of others?You also run away when people do respond to your demands for proof.You did it here: http://www.gocomics.com/claybennett/2013/04/22You did it here: http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant/2013/04/16So why should I bother now? We both know you’ll just ignore my answer and run away.And it this case, you did it in the most stupid way possible, by not even telling me what you’re referring to by “it”.
I Play One On TV almost 11 years ago
This did not originate with Mr. Sheneman. If you have been reading the posts the past few weeks, you’ll see a pattern. A number of posters have mentioned that there should be no more laws, no more background checks, no more anything, because criminals break the law. Actually, many of them went as far as to call some of us ugly names because we were too stupid to understand that criminals would not undergo background checks, criminals would not buy arms legally, and on and on.
Even Mr. LaPierre had a now-famous discussion with John Oliver on the Daily Show, where Mr. Oliver made the same point, except substituting the word “drugs” for “guns”, and got Mr. LaPierre to almost agree to the idea that there is no reason for drug laws because drug users don’t obey them.
The argument can be used for anything, including stop signs. Of course, it’s silly to use it for stop signs, drunk driving, no-trespassing signs, or anything else. But evidently it’s not silly when it comes to guns.
Some conclusions are just bankrupt, and that’s one of them. Tigger, I’m glad you got the point. Ain’t satire great when it fits just right?
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
Drew has merely drawn, EXACTLY the argument the NRA and “gun nuts” have clung to. “Laws don’t work or stop criminals”. Right. Eliminate all laws, Congress, state legislators, police, fire departments, EMT’s and all those other folks on the “government dole” bleeding all those hard working folks at Mickey D’s dry! (Of course, don’t tax corporations or the super wealthy at the same rate (actually paid) because that would be “evil” and “socialist”!
victoria2 almost 11 years ago
Are stop signs protected by our constitution? You are comparing apples and guns. Illogical.
d_legendary1 almost 11 years ago
The right wing motto so they don’t have to do background checks on guns. And then when the next shooting happens blame people with no guns rather than how that crazy person got a hold of one in the first place.
parkerfields almost 11 years ago
If you use liberal distorted logic to prove a point, and gun control seemed reasonable because criminals use guns, how about – background checks for auto purchases, since criminals use autos to get away, and even to kill people in their way – background checks for beer and alcohol purchases, since criminals have often been using these substances prior to committing their crimes – and, since there are so many politicians that have been guilty of crimes, maybe we should do away with the government, and eliminate all of those criminals’ high paying jobs.
riley05 almost 11 years ago
“What about ‘Shall not be infringed’?”What about it?“You’re also cherry picking the 2nd Amendment”Yeah, you hate that “well regulated” part, don’t you, Tigger?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
“Prove it”Tigger, I’ll say it again…You NEVER respond when someone challenges you to back up what you say. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen you running away with your tail between your legs. So what gives you the right to demand that of others?You also run away when people do respond to your demands for proof.You did it here: http://www.gocomics.com/claybennett/2013/04/22You did it here: http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant/2013/04/16So why should I bother now? We both know you’ll just ignore my answer and run away.And it this case, you did it in the most stupid way possible, by not even telling me what you’re referring to by “it”.