If you're so against things that can kill, let's see you call for the complete prohibition of alcohol. Many people die from alcohol-fueled murders, as well as drunk driving, and alcohol is still legal. Alcohol is not NEEDED BY ANYONE. I am making the devil's advocate case. At least with guns, the primary purpose by the majority is for self defense against criminals. It is reprehensible to see the inconsistency of your gun-grabbing position. Even more so in light of your support of women being allowed to murder their unborn children. Like I said above, at least the Gosnell case is opening the eyes of more people to the reality of the abortion agenda.

Any chance you can stop misrepresenting what people say ?

He didn't say he was against guns. Only against the lax regulation of them. And given that the overwhelming majority of the population support him it is hardly a controversial position. Not sure why you decided to derail the point with a criticism of alcohol.

You're fighting a strawman. I didn't say anything about complete prohibtion. I said that in my view a laissez faire, i.e. no or almost none, regulation of killing devices is an infringement of my freedom.

>the laissez faire regulation of killer devices in the US is, in my view, a huge infringement on freedom

That is some professionally constructed doublespeak. Orwell would be impressed!

How??? Everything in that sentence is true. The US has a laissez faire regulation of killing devices/guns/assualt weapons. And my view is that it's an infringement on my freedom (since I have to factor in a greater risk of getting killed when being in public spaces in the US). Please provide some evidence that those two facts are false.

* And my view is that it's an infringement on my freedom (since I have to factor in a greater risk of getting killed when being in public spaces in the US). Please provide some evidence that those two facts are false.*

So by your logic, any place where you're not locked up in a padded room, protected by armed guards is an infringement on your freedom because you have a greater chance of being killed.

Listen, you can be opposed to supposedly "laissez faire regulation" of guns because of your ideological persuasion, but stop lying about it being an infringement on your freedom.

The leftists think stuff like that works.

States rights allows for smorgasbord of governmental choices that we should promote. Same sex marriage could very much be seen as a states rights issue. The problem with further and further removed, larger and larger governments is, where do you go to appeal?

homosexual "marriage" eh? I guess you like being a useful idiot. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-ga...

"It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie."

You do know that ONE person does not speak for the hundreds of millions of gay people worldwide, right ?

Most of those sound like wedge issues though, that are pumped up by the media to divide and distract citizens so they don't ask for better healthcare, more freedoms, etc.

No. People across the world do genuinely care about right to choose and same sex marriage.

There are many people that don't believe in a woman's right to abortion.

Also, I'm fairly confident he believes that same-sex marriage is a state issue, and should not be touched by the federal government.