Pages: 1 … 49 50 51 52 53 … 175

 

2013-01-04 11:09:43
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6439|Escea

1stSFOD-Delta wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ
Gives me wood every time.

That was a USP45, by the way. Not .40.
https://www.imfdb.org/images/6/6b/Usptomcruise.jpg

This one specifically.

I reckon this scene shows what someone with very intensive training could pull off in this kind of real life situation (a similar incident happened for real in NI, when a group of IRA made the mistake of cornering a Regiment bloke, in a car). But then the vast, vast majority of people carrying a gun are never going to be anything like this. Problem is people will, in their mind's eye, believe they can do something like this if need be.

Trotskygrad wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

13rin wrote:

Funny that none of these proposals made by the left (or anyone here) would have prevented this psycho or any other psycho preceding or succeeding him from hurting people. 

This is a textbook example of one side distorting and exploiting a tragedy in order to advance its agenda.  Any resulting laws or restrictions is a small victory to them as they inch closer toward their ultimate goal of confiscation.
you are off your rocker if you think the left are 'distorting' the truth. some kid with issues would do a lot less damage with a melee weapon than a gun: he can be overpowered, disarmed, knocked the fuck out. a person with a gun shoots from a distance. that's pretty basic, no? you don't hear of many knife massacres, surprisingly enough. a small weedy kid with mental problems couldn't go gung-ho and wipe out 30 people with a melee weapon. he'd just get his ass kicked. a gun changes the balance of power, always, towards the aggressor. and the only solution is to remove the guns or tool-up everyone to that highly-charged, highly-lethal level.

a psycho can "hurt people" with any weapon - including his fists - sure. but it's about damage control in this case, not demonizing guns. guns are highly efficient at killing people; it's what they are designed to do. a crazy person with a machete or a baseball bat is going to have a harder time carving up 30 innocent people in a spree. you are deluded if you think there's some sort of 'communist-leftist' conspiracy here. your ideology is blinding rational thought.
stabbing sprees in asia are pretty bad, but like you said they're rarely as lethal.

That being said I think we should regulate certain blades as well, I don't want weedy kids running around with katanas and carving their grandmother up
Gun crime here is not non-existent and we do get spree's, but when you consider that in the past 23 years there have been only 4 mass shooting incidents (Dunblane, Hungerford, Monkseaton and Cumbria), compared to the almost monthly occurrence of multiple-deaths in public areas and schools in the United States, you have to think about why that is. It's like Zique said, a psycho can use anything to kill anyone. You could kill someone with a pen if you really wanted to. But a gun is by far the easiest means. When you look at those knife incidents in China, while disturbingly common, the number of victims is considerably lower compared to the gun attacks in the U.S. It's too easy for people to gain access to the most lethal of weapons.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2013-01-04 11:18:18)

2013-01-04 11:38:09
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
i guess whoever coined the idiomatic phrase 'like bringing a knife to a gun fight' was obviously some sort of crazy anti-guns leftist black propagandist, because everyone knows that all weapons are EQUALLY HURTFUL.
2013-01-04 11:47:49
13rin
Member
+977|6696

aynrandroolz wrote:

13rin wrote:

Funny that none of these proposals made by the left (or anyone here) would have prevented this psycho or any other psycho preceding or succeeding him from hurting people. 

This is a textbook example of one side distorting and exploiting a tragedy in order to advance its agenda.  Any resulting laws or restrictions is a small victory to them as they inch closer toward their ultimate goal of confiscation.
you are off your rocker if you think the left are 'distorting' the truth. some kid with issues would do a lot less damage with a melee weapon than a gun: he can be overpowered, disarmed, knocked the fuck out. a person with a gun shoots from a distance. that's pretty basic, no? you don't hear of many knife massacres, surprisingly enough. a small weedy kid with mental problems couldn't go gung-ho and wipe out 30 people with a melee weapon. he'd just get his ass kicked. a gun changes the balance of power, always, towards the aggressor. and the only solution is to remove the guns or tool-up everyone to that highly-charged, highly-lethal level.

a psycho can "hurt people" with any weapon - including his fists - sure. but it's about damage control in this case, not demonizing guns. guns are highly efficient at killing people; it's what they are designed to do. a crazy person with a machete or a baseball bat is going to have a harder time carving up 30 innocent people in a spree. you are deluded if you think there's some sort of 'communist-leftist' conspiracy here. your ideology is blinding rational thought.
Sorry Uzi & Happy New Year, but where the is a will, there's a way.  For example, that psycho could just as easily killed many more people had he merely stayed in his car, waited to recess, and then used his car as a weapon. 

Placing a ban on "assault weapons" is absurd when you look at statistics like:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/ … -shotguns/

Also when the "assault weapon ban" expired, there was statistically no difference in crimes committed with them before and after.

I've extensively studied this issue and it is a game of inches with every small victory geared to the great goal of total confiscation.  There are all ready enough restrictions in place.  Many totally pointless.  For example, in order for me to legally own a short barreled shotgun, I'd have to pay a $200 tax and wait upwards of 6 months, jump through all sorts of hoops and notify the ATF anytime I intend to travel interstate with it and even take it to the range.... As opposed to the jackass that slaps it in the vice and takes a hacksaw to his.

To address your conspiracy charge, just watch the video of feinstein that surfaced where she declares she'd take them all away.  Look to the Illinois legislature attempting to ban some insane number of them.  "Go for it all, and take what you can get for now.  We'll slide it farther later," is the strategy....  Also, look at Operation Fast and Furious.  Look to holders earlier statements about viewpoints on guns.  He basically said that Americans need to be reprogrammed about their thoughts and beliefs on them.  What other way to do it?  The Communist Conspiracy?  Nah (even though China did release a statement to the US urging them to ban and confiscate all guns)... But seriously and lastly, in reference to my being blinded by rational thought by my ideology?  No, you've mistaken the two, as my ideology mirrors the same rational thought framed by the authors of the Constitution.  It is blind ideology that is fueling this "gun grab".
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2013-01-04 13:09:59
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished?

i'd love some links to news-reports and/or wikipedia articles detailing 'car massacres'.
2013-01-04 13:43:12
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5690|Ventura, California

Dilbert_X wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I've been in a few fights. Won 2 lost but lost sooo many others. I was a kid back then and the stakes weren't high but if I was going to get jumped or something I'd pull my handgun, shout at them to stand still and I'd GTFO safely. I don't want to shoot anybody unless I absolutely have to.
Not shoot and scoot anymore then?

I only want to own three weapons. A rifle of some sort, preferably high caliber for hunting, a shotgun, and a .40 handgun.
What are you planning to hunt in California?

And a .40? Why a .40? And why high capacity?
I don't really know why. I just really like that caliber. It's not too big, not too small. There's a lot of good .40s out there as well so that's a plus. There's a huge skunk overpopulation here in my area and you smell skunk everywhere you go if you live on the hill side of the town instead of the coastal area. I've shot a few animals with pellet guns but those don't do crap so a high powered rifle would be nice. Also, my friends go hunting in Wyoming or Montana, forget which, and I'd like to tag along but they don't have an extra rifle. Handgun would be for self-defense of course.

I plan on leaving California though. I don't know where I'll go though.

edit: I say stupid stuff all the time Dilbert, deep down I really don't want to have to shoot anybody. I will if I absolutely have to though. If I do have to shoot somebody I'd leave the scene though.

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2013-01-04 13:45:10)

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2013-01-04 14:37:55
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5395|Sydney

aynrandroolz wrote:

im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished?

i'd love some links to news-reports and/or wikipedia articles detailing 'car massacres'.
2013-01-04 14:54:56
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6369|what

Jaekus wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished?

i'd love some links to news-reports and/or wikipedia articles detailing 'car massacres'.
Closest you're likely to see:



News article for Liberals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 … 29425.html

News article for idiots:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shockin … ke-riders/

News article for nerds:

http://gawker.com/television#!5772450/v … -in-brazil
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-01-04 15:04:31
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5802

AussieReaper wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished?

i'd love some links to news-reports and/or wikipedia articles detailing 'car massacres'.
Closest you're likely to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoarBOHzrNw
2013-01-04 15:27:52
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6926|England. Stoke

aynrandroolz wrote:

im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished?

i'd love some links to news-reports and/or wikipedia articles detailing 'car massacres'.
There was that guy in Cardiff who went round in a van, but he "only" killed one and hit about 15 others.
2013-01-04 15:32:34
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6988|PNW

aynrandroolz wrote:

im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished
I don't see why a mentally imbalanced person couldn't. Vehicular assault/homicide is a thing. However, it's certainly not as popular for the media to gnosh on as shooting sprees.

@aussie:
Cyclist accused of vehicular manslaughter over pedestrian's death pleads not guilty
2013-01-04 15:35:07
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished
I don't see why a mentally imbalanced person couldn't. Vehicular assault/homicide is a thing. However, it's certainly not as popular for the media to gnosh on as shooting sprees.

@aussie:
Cyclist accused of vehicular manslaughter over pedestrian's death pleads not guilty
yeah ok, sure. still not convinced that a car or any other inert object is as effective at killing people as... oh i don't know... SOMETHING INVENTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KILLING THINGS. if this is really the argument that the pro-gun folks are settling on - that a psychopath could murder 30 schoolchildren or storm a cinema using a BIC biro pen or a stapler or a large screwdriver or a phone directory or whatever - then you really have lost the fucking debate.
2013-01-04 15:42:22
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6988|PNW

I wonder if I should ask my grandpa if the semi truck that hit him was less effective than a gun. Oh, wait. He's dead. I agree that it's a silly way to defend guns, but cars and trucks can still be used on purpose to deadly effect. And when I was a kid, I was no less intimidated by the car "pretending to run me down" as I was walking home from school than I think I would've been if they fired a round in my direction and laughed.
2013-01-04 16:36:24
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471
have i ever denied that a car can be used to murder someone? no. this is about massacres. psychopaths going on rampages. school shootings. rampages at cinemas. shopping mall face-offs. a car, like almost anything, can be deadly, sure. auto accidents happen. hit'n'runs happen. purposeful rammings happen. however, an unstable child isn't going to get behind the wheel of his mom's prius and kill THIRTY people.

you guys are being so fucking dumb and obtuse.
2013-01-04 16:57:54
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6988|PNW

If you want more serious conversations, you should drop the karma abuse and stop falling back on "you people are just dumb I'm gonna go home and cry." It's hard enough taking you seriously, you pricklepuss.
2013-01-04 17:05:12
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5253|Massachusetts, USA
Guns aren't evil, the people behind them are.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2013-01-04 17:11:23
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4471

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If you want more serious conversations, you should drop the karma abuse and stop falling back on "you people are just dumb I'm gonna go home and cry." It's hard enough taking you seriously, you pricklepuss.
karma abuse? i get ONE POST EVERY 30 MINUTES. it's not 'abuse', it''s 'using a system to communicate'.

also how am i "falling back" on anything? HAVE YOU READ YOUR ARGUMENTS? im saying guns should be blamed for mass killings, because - quelle surprise! - guns are designed TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE. your best 'comeback' is that many other everyday objects and devices can be used to kill someone. well, yes. you can kill someone with a piece of paper on the jugular. okay, great. have a point. i am not proposing that you ban or legislate every single object that could potentially cause a fatal wound to another person. i am not denying that a deranged or psychopathic or perhaps just simply criminal and vindictive person could kill another person with a whole plethora of everyday, legal, accessible objects.

what i am saying is that very few objects - even weapons - kill as many, as efficiently, as guns. particularly military-grade automatic weapons, or any of the other ridiculously high-power firearms that you can acquire in the USA. all these pointless hypotheticals where you talk about knifes or automobiles or sewing machines killing multiple people are pretty much bunkum. the simple fact exists that mass shootings occur because guns are pretty damn good at facilitating them. yes, deranged people would still go on the rampage if guns were banned. however they wouldn't be able to kill 30 schoolchildren in a 10 minute period. not even achilles could fucking cut down 30 people in 10 minutes using a sword, let alone some socially stunted late-teen with a slipknot tshirt and aspergers. they are just incomparable.

to use phrases such as me "falling back" or 'backing out' basically is absurd. are you reading what you are posting? i don't really see any decent counter-arguments made to my original point. something about your grandpapa being killed by a truck. yes, okay. was he killed in the great ford f-150 massacre of '78? oh, no? it was an isolated incident? oh okay then. guess it doesn't have much bearing on a discussion to ban guns following multiple DOUBLE-DIGIT massacres.

Guns aren't evil, the people behind them are.
love that reasoning. so funny it deserves a comedian to respond to it.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-04 17:16:30)

2013-01-04 17:24:32
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5690|Ventura, California

aynrandroolz wrote:

im sorry did you just suggest, in defense of guns, that a mentally imbalanced person could kill 30 people with a car if he wished?

i'd love some links to news-reports and/or wikipedia articles detailing 'car massacres'.
Are you kidding me? Crowds get driven through about as often as random gun massacres happen but it's not front page news for the next week.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2013-01-04 17:49:51
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5253|Massachusetts, USA

aynrandroolz wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If you want more serious conversations, you should drop the karma abuse and stop falling back on "you people are just dumb I'm gonna go home and cry." It's hard enough taking you seriously, you pricklepuss.
karma abuse? i get ONE POST EVERY 30 MINUTES. it's not 'abuse', it''s 'using a system to communicate'.

also how am i "falling back" on anything? HAVE YOU READ YOUR ARGUMENTS? im saying guns should be blamed for mass killings, because - quelle surprise! - guns are designed TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE. your best 'comeback' is that many other everyday objects and devices can be used to kill someone. well, yes. you can kill someone with a piece of paper on the jugular. okay, great. have a point. i am not proposing that you ban or legislate every single object that could potentially cause a fatal wound to another person. i am not denying that a deranged or psychopathic or perhaps just simply criminal and vindictive person could kill another person with a whole plethora of everyday, legal, accessible objects.

what i am saying is that very few objects - even weapons - kill as many, as efficiently, as guns. particularly military-grade automatic weapons, or any of the other ridiculously high-power firearms that you can acquire in the USA. all these pointless hypotheticals where you talk about knifes or automobiles or sewing machines killing multiple people are pretty much bunkum. the simple fact exists that mass shootings occur because guns are pretty damn good at facilitating them. yes, deranged people would still go on the rampage if guns were banned. however they wouldn't be able to kill 30 schoolchildren in a 10 minute period. not even achilles could fucking cut down 30 people in 10 minutes using a sword, let alone some socially stunted late-teen with a slipknot tshirt and aspergers. they are just incomparable.

to use phrases such as me "falling back" or 'backing out' basically is absurd. are you reading what you are posting? i don't really see any decent counter-arguments made to my original point. something about your grandpapa being killed by a truck. yes, okay. was he killed in the great ford f-150 massacre of '78? oh, no? it was an isolated incident? oh okay then. guess it doesn't have much bearing on a discussion to ban guns following multiple DOUBLE-DIGIT massacres.

Guns aren't evil, the people behind them are.
love that reasoning. so funny it deserves a comedian to respond to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914
So a gun walks into a school and shoots people, by itself. Your logic is infallible.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2013-01-04 18:40:11
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5813|Vacationland

UnkleRukus wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If you want more serious conversations, you should drop the karma abuse and stop falling back on "you people are just dumb I'm gonna go home and cry." It's hard enough taking you seriously, you pricklepuss.
karma abuse? i get ONE POST EVERY 30 MINUTES. it's not 'abuse', it''s 'using a system to communicate'.

also how am i "falling back" on anything? HAVE YOU READ YOUR ARGUMENTS? im saying guns should be blamed for mass killings, because - quelle surprise! - guns are designed TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE. your best 'comeback' is that many other everyday objects and devices can be used to kill someone. well, yes. you can kill someone with a piece of paper on the jugular. okay, great. have a point. i am not proposing that you ban or legislate every single object that could potentially cause a fatal wound to another person. i am not denying that a deranged or psychopathic or perhaps just simply criminal and vindictive person could kill another person with a whole plethora of everyday, legal, accessible objects.

what i am saying is that very few objects - even weapons - kill as many, as efficiently, as guns. particularly military-grade automatic weapons, or any of the other ridiculously high-power firearms that you can acquire in the USA. all these pointless hypotheticals where you talk about knifes or automobiles or sewing machines killing multiple people are pretty much bunkum. the simple fact exists that mass shootings occur because guns are pretty damn good at facilitating them. yes, deranged people would still go on the rampage if guns were banned. however they wouldn't be able to kill 30 schoolchildren in a 10 minute period. not even achilles could fucking cut down 30 people in 10 minutes using a sword, let alone some socially stunted late-teen with a slipknot tshirt and aspergers. they are just incomparable.

to use phrases such as me "falling back" or 'backing out' basically is absurd. are you reading what you are posting? i don't really see any decent counter-arguments made to my original point. something about your grandpapa being killed by a truck. yes, okay. was he killed in the great ford f-150 massacre of '78? oh, no? it was an isolated incident? oh okay then. guess it doesn't have much bearing on a discussion to ban guns following multiple DOUBLE-DIGIT massacres.

Guns aren't evil, the people behind them are.
love that reasoning. so funny it deserves a comedian to respond to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914
So a gun walks into a school and shoots people, by itself. Your logic is infallible.
A man walks into a school and kills 30 kids with his bare hands?
2013-01-04 18:55:39
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5253|Massachusetts, USA

Narupug wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If you want more serious conversations, you should drop the karma abuse and stop falling back on "you people are just dumb I'm gonna go home and cry." It's hard enough taking you seriously, you pricklepuss.
karma abuse? i get ONE POST EVERY 30 MINUTES. it's not 'abuse', it''s 'using a system to communicate'.

also how am i "falling back" on anything? HAVE YOU READ YOUR ARGUMENTS? im saying guns should be blamed for mass killings, because - quelle surprise! - guns are designed TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE. your best 'comeback' is that many other everyday objects and devices can be used to kill someone. well, yes. you can kill someone with a piece of paper on the jugular. okay, great. have a point. i am not proposing that you ban or legislate every single object that could potentially cause a fatal wound to another person. i am not denying that a deranged or psychopathic or perhaps just simply criminal and vindictive person could kill another person with a whole plethora of everyday, legal, accessible objects.

what i am saying is that very few objects - even weapons - kill as many, as efficiently, as guns. particularly military-grade automatic weapons, or any of the other ridiculously high-power firearms that you can acquire in the USA. all these pointless hypotheticals where you talk about knifes or automobiles or sewing machines killing multiple people are pretty much bunkum. the simple fact exists that mass shootings occur because guns are pretty damn good at facilitating them. yes, deranged people would still go on the rampage if guns were banned. however they wouldn't be able to kill 30 schoolchildren in a 10 minute period. not even achilles could fucking cut down 30 people in 10 minutes using a sword, let alone some socially stunted late-teen with a slipknot tshirt and aspergers. they are just incomparable.

to use phrases such as me "falling back" or 'backing out' basically is absurd. are you reading what you are posting? i don't really see any decent counter-arguments made to my original point. something about your grandpapa being killed by a truck. yes, okay. was he killed in the great ford f-150 massacre of '78? oh, no? it was an isolated incident? oh okay then. guess it doesn't have much bearing on a discussion to ban guns following multiple DOUBLE-DIGIT massacres.


love that reasoning. so funny it deserves a comedian to respond to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914
So a gun walks into a school and shoots people, by itself. Your logic is infallible.
A man walks into a school and kills 30 kids with his bare hands?
A gun is the easiest tool to use to kill. Which is why so many people put the blame on a lifeless hunk of metal. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person that pulls the trigger. Without a person to do so, a gun is a lifeless hunk of metal with lifeless hunks of brass inside of it.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2013-01-04 18:59:33
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5813|Vacationland

UnkleRukus wrote:

Narupug wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:


So a gun walks into a school and shoots people, by itself. Your logic is infallible.
A man walks into a school and kills 30 kids with his bare hands?
A gun is the easiest tool to use to kill. Which is why so many people put the blame on a lifeless hunk of metal. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person that pulls the trigger. Without a person to do so, a gun is a lifeless hunk of metal with lifeless hunks of brass inside of it.
True, but I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion.
2013-01-04 19:02:33
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5802

People sure are attaching a lot of meaning to some lifeless hunks of metal. People are falling over each other to defend these inanimate objects as if they were handed down to them by God himself.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-04 19:03:55)

2013-01-04 19:03:43
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5253|Massachusetts, USA
It's more relevant than uzique going batshit nuts over some stupid quip about his meaningless life.

The whole argument of firearms needed to be banned because firearms are evil is just horrendous and unnecessary. People are just afraid of them because when in the wrong hands, they will kill. So they outright attempt to ban them for everybody. Including those who use them for sport, which ruins a lot of people's enjoyment. (My own included.)

I'm going into a trade involving firearms, so having them banned kind of hurts business. So defending them is necessary for me.

Last edited by UnkleRukus (2013-01-04 19:04:32)

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2013-01-04 19:07:18
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6849|949

13rin wrote:

Funny that none of these proposals made by the left (or anyone here) would have prevented this psycho or any other psycho preceding or succeeding him from hurting people. 

This is a textbook example of one side distorting and exploiting a tragedy in order to advance its agenda.  Any resulting laws or restrictions is a small victory to them as they inch closer toward their ultimate goal of confiscation.
Its also 'funny' that states/counties/cities with concealed carry laws still have gun deaths. Its also 'funny' that statistically you're more likely to kill yourself with a gun than kill someone else (almost 2:1).  Its also 'funny' that the seond amendment hasn't stopped the government from becoming more and more authoritarian.
2013-01-04 19:13:54
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5813|Vacationland

UnkleRukus wrote:

It's more relevant than uzique going batshit nuts over some stupid quip about his meaningless life.

The whole argument of firearms needed to be banned because firearms are evil is just horrendous and unnecessary. People are just afraid of them because when in the wrong hands, they will kill. So they outright attempt to ban them for everybody. Including those who use them for sport, which ruins a lot of people's enjoyment. (My own included.)

I'm going into a trade involving firearms, so having them banned kind of hurts business. So defending them is necessary for me.
I don't think anyone is proposing banning them completely.

 

Pages: 1 … 49 50 51 52 53 … 175

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard