SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
I'd have to surmise that less guns also means the cops don't need to have their hand on their gun and an adrenaline surge when stopping you for a broken tail light.
"Fk the NRA"
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
thetr33man
Well-Known Member
That means nothing. If course a gun is a better killing tool than a knife. A nail gun is a better nailing tool than a hammer also. Do u think of we ban them people will quit building houses? There r more guns in the us than people and they are constitutionally protected. There is no going gun free in the us. To try to do so would cause a war and it's obvious who would win... the MEN with guns, not the twinkies without.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Men with gunz.
LOL
The 2nd says "well regulated". I'd like to see "well regulated". The only people talking about taking gunz away is the NRA who is ringing your pussy chimes to get you in a lather over fake news. No reason to take gunz away from MEN who are peaceful and just like stroking their toy. What the NRA is objecting to are better background checks and regulations that say people with mental disabilities and domestic abusers shouldn't have gunz. Also some restrictions on the type of rifles.
Pussies like you feel the need to own a gun? I'm fine with that. Just lock them up so children and thieves aren't easily able to access them. Don't point them at other people without cause. Also get some proficiency training so you don't kill bystanders when your Barney-like fearful instincts kick in.
Is that such a tall order mister MAN?
thetr33man
Well-Known Member
What good does a locked gun do when someone breaks into my house? The govt should have no right to tell me what to do with my belongings in my castle.
It is clear you don't have a good grasp of English if u think the first part of the 2nd changes the second... the intentions of the 2nd are very clear if u do a little research. Warning tho, it won't jive with your agenda.
It is clear you don't have a good grasp of English if u think the first part of the 2nd changes the second... the intentions of the 2nd are very clear if u do a little research. Warning tho, it won't jive with your agenda.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
"well regulated militia"
What part of totally open access to fire arms and known mentally deranged killers having free access to gunz equate to well regulated?
You should read up on the history of the 2nd. It was not all about flooding the market with mass killing machines. It was about a state being able to raise a militia to defend itself. How that translated into gun shops on every corner and unregulated gun sales at gun shows and private sales only makes sense to a neanderthal like you
There are very good gun safes available that allow bio-activated access to your gun that is faster than you could open a drawer. Better yet, your kid won't kill himself with it when he finds it under your stained underwear.
That said, I'm OK with gun owners using their weapon on themselves.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
It's obvious that the United States military would win, you fucking moronic cuck.
Good luck shooting down the Predator (armed to the teeth with Hellfire missiles) with your AR15.
Good luck stopping the Abrams tanks with your AR15.
And for the record I'm a gun owner, I just would like the "well regulated" part of the 2nd taken seriously.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
thetr33man
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately you are reading the 2nd wrong. If the intention was as you think, i would have been worded "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", this has already been clarified in court so your arguments hold no sway. Our militias are well regulated, but "the people" are not a militia...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You should be careful
Somebody might get hurt.
the above two lines are quite different from the sentence:
You should be careful somebody might get hurt.
the 2nd:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
True, if you split the sentence in two, there can be plenty of different interpretations. The thing is, it was written as one sentence which pretty much makes the 2nd about states rights to defend themselves. It says nothing about an unregulated gun market.
Yes, there are some rulings by the Supreme Court that splits the 2nd into two sentences. That can be changed. It's not necessary. All that is under discussion right now is better background checks and restrictions on some rifles.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
I think you read his post wrong and he agrees with us...?
I'll need clarification on that though.
Regardless, weren't the militias officially absorbed into the Armed Forces like 100 years ago or something?
Edit: Yep, they were reorganised into the state Army National Guard and the state Air National Guard. Giving each state control of its "well regulated militia".
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Seriously? Knife death problems lol. Just look at the gun stats in the states versus any crime related death in Britain in a per capita level. For every gun carrying hero saving one there are probably 1000 more killed due to the gun laws that allow criminals easy access
. The whole argument for your gun laws is seriously flawed. I would love to be able to carry while bear hunting though but I’ll take our laws over yours just for the piece of mind 
.
thetr33man
Well-Known Member
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-crime-murder/london-murder-rate-overtakes-new-york-as-knife-crime-rises-idUSKCN1HA1DHSeriously? Knife death problems lol. Just look at the gun stats in the states versus any crime related death in Britain in a per capita level. For every gun carrying hero saving one there are probably 1000 more killed due to the gun laws that allow criminals easy access
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed…”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million…”
“
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies…”
Last edited:
DG1959
Well-Known Member
You are correct, fewer gun deaths, more knife attacks.
SB85
Well-Known Member
The NRA hasn't done a good job in my opinion, of being on the frontlines to make sure firearms aren't falling into the hands of nut jobs. Then you have one of the NRA top dogs crazy Ted Nugent running around trying to bully high school kids from that recent shooting in fla. They seem to make tons of excuses for shooting instead of coming up with plans to make sure that they are prevented.
thetr33man
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately you cant prevent evil/crazy people from doing bad things. Even in the most restrictive countries in the world, bad people do bad shit. If its not with guns, its with bombs, planes or automobiles... Taking away or restricting one of the best self defense tools by making more laws doesnt stop the criminals from using those tools to harm others, it only prevents law abiding people from using the same tools to defend themselves and their property.
Honestly the NRA has no authority to prevent people who shouldn't have guns from acquiring them. That is the job of the police and our government... I don't agree with some of the tactics of the NRA (like the yeti cooler debacle) but they are good at their main goal, which is preventing attacks on the 2nd amendment and the defending the rights of citizens of our country.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
You’re dumb
L30nPh3lps
Well-Known Member
Oh my gosh all this jerking off with ur halos had proven how morally superior u are to gun owners, i can see my ak turning into a rainbow!
SB85
Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with gun owners, but do have an issue with nut jobs being able to get a hold of "legal" guns from shops to commit school shootings among others. There needs to be something put in place to prevent such actions.
L30nPh3lps
Well-Known Member
Ooh i have a good idea! Lets let a bunch of children and facebook likes from the uninformed/misinformed masses dictate legislative policy! I also was in New York during 9/11 so i would like to be in charge of the FAA! Anyone else have some constitutional rights they wanna turn in? By the end of the week we could be Australia!
L30nPh3lps
Well-Known Member
Billions of people in the world, yes of course a very few of them are crazy (dont think anybody is arguing to arm mental hospitals), and you also hear about literally everything that happens everywhere now like timmy 4000 miles away getting a splinter, ud think we were all bullet dodgers and multiple shootout survivors to all be here talking, any of u ever seen or heard a gun fired in anger? Got a bunch of bullet holes in ur headboard? I choose to defend myself from the few crazies and dont worry, ill protect u too while u try to love the anger out of an attacker