Skip to main content

A response to a comment I received on the blog, "A man tries to make gun-control proponents look dumb through his 'smart' aleck experiment, but makes himself look dumb in the process"

On April 12th of last year, I wrote a blog, entitled, "A man tries to make gun-control proponents look dumb through his 'smart' aleck experiment, but makes himself look dumb in the process," which can be viewed here - http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-man-tries-to-make-gun-control.html?showComment=1398357016839#c8342953763320375809.

A few days ago, I received this response to that very blog:

"He was not saying it for people who think that it is both the gun and the person who are killing is saying this for the people who want to take guns away even from people who are totally capable with a gun. If you don't want a gun fine have it your way but I have every right by the law to have a gun and I would gladly use it in protection and defense of my family. Even so, if gun laws were passed the types of people who shoot up people, do you really think a law against guns is going to stop them it will hinder them but it won't stop them it just takes guns away from the people who would use them to protect themselves who would follow the law. And just so you know if my spelling is off I am a dyslexic 16 year old boy, so sorry."

Shortly thereafter, I responded to the comment, but have yet to hear back and am uncertain if he/she saw it, so I thought I'd post a separate blog about the matter, just in case this person wasn't notified about the reply.

In my response, I wrote the following:

"With regard to your comment, I have just a few questions:

1) How would expanding background checks and the like take guns away from law-abiding citizens, as it seems you contend they would?

2) Are you in favor of written, vision, and driving tests before one is able to attain a license? If so, why shouldn't there be similar-type tests in order to entrust a person with another potentially deadly weapon, such as a gun?

3) If we go by the philosophy that there would be no point in strengthening gun-control laws because it's inevitable that criminals will break these laws, what point is there of having any laws? Isn't it inevitable that any and every law will be broken at least once? Given that, isn't the point of laws to lessen the likelihood, and with that, the frequency, that such unruly acts occur?"

If the individual whom wrote the comment would like to provide answers for these questions, feel free to do so, and I'll attempt to reply shortly thereafter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Trump's Lie Tally at the CNN Debate

1) "We had the greatest economy in the history of our country. We had never done so well. Every – everybody was amazed by it. Other countries were copying us." 2) "But the thing we never got the credit for, and we should have, is getting us out of that COVID mess." 3) "The only jobs he created are for illegal immigrants and bounceback jobs; they’re bounced back from the COVID." 4) "Not going to drive them higher. It’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like China and many others, in all fairness to China – it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money, reduce our deficit tremendously, and give us a lot of power for other things." (tariffs) 5) "He also said he inherited 9 percent inflation." 6) "No, he inherited almost no inflation and it stayed that way for 14 months. And then it blew up under his leadership, because they spent money like a bunch of people that didn’t know what t...