Guns, Gays, War, And Other Things

Guns - To be added on to

   Who doesn't love to shoot some flyin' discs?
Liberals. That's who.
Liberals believe by taking away our rights to own guns, criminals will follow the law and hand over Ol' Boomstick. Because criminals won't want to break the law of course!
   Do note that the Tin Foil hat guy bits are added for humor, I do not believe Obama wields the one ring of Sauron
   That in itself just destroys the entire liberal argument. Perhaps you, dear Barack Omaniacs out there are thinking "But it will make it harder to obtain a firearm." And you'd be right. However, it would merely slow things down, and then a Black Market would be made. Which a few already have.
   then, once the criminals are weaponized, the near defenceless people of our not-so perfect union will be killed off. Without the basic right to defend ourselves with firearms we will die. Just as simple as that. This is what liberals want, evidently, us dead. Lucky for us, Obama hasn't outlawed knives or fists, but that's his next target. Why not just invite Mexican crime lords over to kill us for them? They are. Its called America's lack of deportation. We pretty much LET the rapists and drug addicts take our jobs. I'm not saying all Mexicans are bad, but their are bad apples in the grove.
   Now that I got that off my chest, we may continue.
   Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Meaning a gun can be left on the porch and no one can touch it, and it will not kill anyone. End of story. This means, guns must NOT be bad. Who knew? See, a weapon is only a weapon weapon when it is wielded in a way meant to cause others harm. Its a shield weapon when its used to protect one from a maniac like Sauron or Darth Vader. Movie references over. Continuing. So to recap, a Gun won't kill people  unless the person behind the gun is uneducated or is a psychopath. Honestly. Who knew such a thing? Conservatives, duh. How childish of me, post a removal of the duh.
   Now, a common counter argument would be "You don't need guns for protection". Please. If someone is pointing a gun at you and you have a tiny butterfly knife, your not going to be able to kill him from a distance. Or at all If you try to charge him, he'll shoot you dead. So yes, we need guns. Another one would be "You don't need guns for recreation". That's like outlawing baseball. Baseball is VERY american and so are guns. We were born from guns and violence, get used to it. And, I can't play pretty much anything besides soccer in terms of athleticism.. So shooting is a must for me. Get your paws off of my Glock.
   Now, the leftist argument towards gun laws is that not only do we not need firearms, but it would help us if we removed them. Once again this is following the logic that we only enjoy the things they do like gardening and going to queer clubs, and that criminals wouldn't want to break the law of course. So the entire idea is just idiocy. Now one may think that if guns aren't around, you couldn't get one, and therefore not commit homicide. This seems to be very sound and logical, and it is, without a few glaring potholes of course. See, just as many drugs are illegal, many people still obtain and use them, this applies to all contraband, as stated earlier. That is one thing ruled out. Now the second half of the argument is that if one does not possess a firearm he cannot after all use it for homicide. That is fair enough, however as I had stated prior, there will still be use of firearms as contraband material, similar to a drug. Likewise, people will still commit murder if they are that committed to the harming of an individual, Kalashnikov or not.