Reply With Quote
What does NEED have to do with it? Why don't we place restrictions on everyone in the US to owning only those items that are necessary to survival?
The Cons ution does not say "the right to bear NEEDED arms"
Sorry...most gang related shooting deaths are from handguns. Drop me off in middle America...I'll do fine with the AR owners.
What does NEED have to do with it? Why don't we place restrictions on everyone in the US to owning only those items that are necessary to survival?
The Cons ution does not say "the right to bear NEEDED arms"
Why only that type? Statistically, you aren't solving much/saving a significant amount of people.
I said the type, so if you dont get it Im very sorry. Have a great weekend.
Was a slow week at work. Thanks for making it fun!
"No that would be too hard"
"No that wouldn't work"
"Guns would be easier"
You're full of . Just state your narrative so everyone knows where you're funneling your convo to.
Look at Bernie go!
The 2nd doesn't say that militias shall always exist. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Also, the "outdated" claims I see people making over and over are short sighted. Anytime the 2nd is reaffirmed by our highest courts and defended by such, it has no expiration date.
the notion that the citizens bearing arms will prevent tyranny is outdated
Why don't you get dropped off in Compton and regale them with your sexual tales of eating ass? You'd be in more trouble than whitey.
L0L, Ken making s and rabbit hole diggers tap out. Good stuff.
its only if its a man's ass, imo
I'm not convinced his "wife" is female.
i wouldn't doubt if i am older than you so go sit in the corner kid.
Car and gun equivalency Inspector Clousseau.
And it was a funny ride.
Oh they may sew your mouth shut, but they ain't prying that gun from yer hand... Comedy.
And you call me full of bovine residue...
"Might as well lay back and enjoy it" -Clayton Williams
You lost at every turn, and you struggled to funnel the choices so they would eventually fit your narrative, but you lost.
On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."
Because the appeal to feels disregards history. There is no reason to ban these more powerful guns for statistical anomalies. Having guns isn't about hunting.
Appeal to feels also disregards the fact that in the future it's going to be easy to 3d print guns.
Appeal to feels also likes to lump in suicides by guns as if that changes after gun control to mislead and feed a narrative.
Appeal to feels also disregards that these suggested changes for gun control don't have significant impact.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.c370257ab172
If it's all about safety then let's ban alcohol. For that matter let's set a curfew for the nation so people have to be at home by 10 p.m. because crime es at night. Let's ban all unhealthy food. Let's ban swimming pools. Let's ban cars. Not all of those perfectly fit but alcohol certainly does given how many lives are lost because of drunk driving.
So you are for banning alcohol because it causes an massive amount of casualties every year? No?Still on cars?
the murder fantasies of the gun owners here.
Lots o' losing when you are the judge.
So do you ever feel like shooting the monitor because your 1st amendment rights are tering on the brink of collapse?
Are bars still getting sued for over serving clients? I have Not kept up?So you are for banning alcohol because it causes an massive amount of casualties every year? No?
Point?
If we are for protecting innocent lives then we for damn sure need to be begging for alcohol to be banned. Otherwise your argument is just from selfish perspective. "I like alcohol(it's dangerous) so we'll keep it." "I dislike alcohol(it's dangerous) so let's ban it." Tired of people acting like their opinion based on their morals for the greater good when it's just them being selfish.
Oh. So you don't know.
So me being ok with guns but looking into what guns are really used for causing outrageous damage is a bad thing. As is my belief you should not be driving a giant machine when one can't walk. Or serving pure ethanol thinking it's beer. See, I can make bad anologies as well.
We as a society are willing to take the death toll from cars and trucks for the sake of transportation.
That's quite obvious.
And it is also Obvious there is not the same willingness for some type of arms. Yet. The drug thing... THC is still illegal for recreational use in Texas. So... We will see.
Guns are very rarely used for causing "outrageous damage". Your methods of protection haven't been shown to prevent gun crime per 538's research.
"When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos."
"By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. "
Yeah, because people being pushed a narrative and eating it up. Appeals to feels and misleading people into thinking "x" change will make the difference even though it won't. All in an effort to erode gun rights over time. Let's do "X" even though it doesn't change anything. After the next happens, oh let's do "y" which is another ineffective policy. Before long you fear mongered a significant portion of the population into giving up their rights.
Welcome to your new vulnerable state.
On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."
So present day Germany is really vulnerable.
But we are only semi vulnerable.
And Fckn Norway, France, England...
Oh , I forgot, they are held hostage by a socialist government they can vote in or out. Which they do.
If you don't mind, I can do without your Bundy Militia defending me from vulnerability with an ar-15. You have a shotgun so we can eat some quail together, they are delicious. And white tail doe and Axis deer. When do we eat?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
