Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Standing My Ground
4858 Followers
82eightytwo
-11 Followers
Bluebillion
3901 Followers
Kamal Bansal
3429 Followers
Andrei Marin
771 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
Digg To Boss
2007 Followers
UncleTogieAug 30, 2011
So the majority {over 4 million} were people not allowed to own a firearm here legally to begin with....
*shrug*
Donuts4UAug 30, 2011
CSGV will really shriek if the drug laws are changed and the number of felons starts dropping.
libertyalwaysAug 30, 2011Submitter
And when violent crime goes dramatically down as well, as it inevitably would if the drug trade were made not inherently criminal, CSGV's shrieking will look even more ridiculous.
ridgerunner5Aug 30, 2011
CSGV has a vested interested in keeping all law abiding people from owning firearms. Of course they think the number is too low.
UncleTogieAug 30, 2011
Of course they do. After all, their *original* name was "National Coalition to Ban Handguns". They changed the name after they decided to include "assault rifles"... all brought to you by the United Methodist Church, believe it or not....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence
wjappeAug 31, 2011
I think it's scary that they think this way
Closed AccountAug 31, 2011
Nice to know
chrismackechnieAug 30, 2011
Standard IQ tests would suggest about 10% of the population fall into the bottom 10% of intelligent. That's about 30 million idiots I'd prefer didn't have a gun.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scythefwdAug 31, 2011
Yup, because our rights should be determined by an IQ test. If your too stupid, we can also search your car without cause, censor you, etc...
Really? Just because a person isn't intelligent doesn't mean he has any less right to self defense than anyone else.
Some of the most unsafe actions I've seen at the range were by educated people.
chrismackechnieAug 31, 2011
Yes, actually. I think being intelligent enough to make good decisions is a pretty good way to decide who gets to carry something that can kill others. You can steer the conversation into other infringements - real or imagined - if you want. I'm simply saying that if you are dumb enough to fall into the bottom 10% of the population, I think we should question your right to carry an assault rifle.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scythefwdAug 31, 2011
Define assault rifle. Fully automatic is how it is defined federally. The lowest 10% probably can't afford one as the price to entry is about 7k. Lets restrict their access to tire irons, knives, cars, etc. while we're at it.
IQ doesn't necessarily equate to the ability to make good decisions. Paris Hilton supposedly has an on record IQ of 131... she isn't exactly what I'd call responsible. I'm impressed that you seem to think that having a low IQ somehow prohibits you from understanding 4 rules. That is all there is to gun safety. My cousin, who can be accurately described as dumb as s**t is even capable to understanding them.
It's called a right, not a privilege.
scythefwdAug 31, 2011
Lets have a fun exercise in research.. tell me the difference between a right and a privilege. While we're at it, tell me what the phrase "shall not be infringed" actually entails.
blackhorse19dAug 31, 2011
Let's apply that same standard to their right to procreate.
If they are too stupid to make the decision to possibly take a life by defending themselves, then they are too stupid to possibly create one.
After all, the likelihood that two feeble minded individuals will produce a genius are probably pretty slim.
We would have to make laws that no pair can procreate unless they are at least of average intelligence. If one partner falls below the scale, the other must be high enough on the scale for the average of the two to be above the baseline.
Additionally, since were are going to start limiting rights based on IQ scores, let's get the big one out f the way before we do guns, or babies.
Minimum IQ for voter registration. Set it at the same number as for owning a gun.
Then we can move on to minimum IQ scores for free speech, and all the other rights.
Hell, why not make it so a person can not be certified as a citizen until they meet a minimum IQ score?
Sound good?