cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
or a pair of pagodas ~giggle~now i'm going to have nightmares considering a man's body is a temple..
or a pair of pagodas ~giggle~now i'm going to have nightmares considering a man's body is a temple..
Blunt force trauma is the lead cause of violent death. We gonna outlaw fists?If people are to blame why do we give them rights they cannot handle?
what? i didnt even post a Minaret, cuz im classy as fuck yo.now i'm going to have nightmares considering a man's body is a temple..
on the real cherie,tasersssssssss
I didnt choose the Ug Life, Ug Life chose me.You had to pick the pig squealer.
Now I won't be able to get that out of my head. Superman doesn't help.
Bad, bad memories.some Top Quality capsicum pepper spray, the "Bear Mace" type.
What the fuck are you talking about? I said virtually the only thing that could be as efficient at killing people as guns are vehicles. Given the right situation you could run over a lot of people, but they're still not as proficient as firearms. I don't have any idea why the fuck you're talking about the IRS, it has nothing to do with the conversation and is a strawman at best.thats is specious. none of the licensing or registration of automobiles has anything to do with preventing vehicular homicide.
you may as well claim the IRS is just reducing our "disposable income" so we dont blow it all on candy and junk food so "it's for our own good"
people have been killing people with "vehicles" for centuries, or do you porpose that "war horses" were not dangerous, or Hannibal's Elephants were properly licensed and registered thus, harmless?
I agree! If someone is straight up out to kill someone, they'll probably do it regardless of what's available. A lot of crimes are crimes of passion though, and happen because of things that are readily available.if one is of a mind to do some killin, even the magical disappearance of all firearms from the face of the earth would not dissuade them.
You are such a dumbass. You can use a firearm readily available to the public offensively out to...2200 meters? lol The primary usage of firearms has always been offense.you lefties make a HUGE DEAL about how "guns make killin easier for muderers" but the REAL utility in firearms is that it makes their deployment in DEFENSE much faster and easier than previous playing field leveling measures, while their use in OFFENSE remains largely the same as a sword among a population of unarmed japanese peasants was 200 years ago.
It takes much less skill and practice to proficiently use a firearm than it does a sword.the use of a sword, a spear a club or even a knife against unarmed victims is a huge advantage for the assailant, but when the victims are similarly armed, the advantage goes to those most proficient in the weapon available.
those who made a living by the use of a sword were ALWAYS better at the use of said weapon than the guy who kept his great grandfather's sword over the mantle and never used it, but against the average bandit, it was sufficient.
I agree. Having an easily accessible firearm is the best defense against an unknown intruder. Personally I have a Remington Model 870 with a 12" barrel and an adjustable stock with pistol grip. It has a flashlight too. When it's not in use or ready for immediate use, it has a trigger lock on it.likewise, a pistol close to hand is more than adequate for defense against a similarly armed asailant, but the LACK of a pistol against an assailant armed with even a kitchen knife or baseball bat rapidly swings the advantage to the attacker.
as the attacker is the INSTIGATOR of violence, he has the automatic advantage of preparation, while the victim remains blissfully unaware of this assailant's intentions until the moment of the attack.
If you're extremely lazy it could. You over exaggerate to the point of absurdity and it really makes your arguments weaker. On this particular issue you have some good points, just don't be stupid about them. "Growing victim pool".... lol Drama Queen...your proposition of hurdles and justifications and explanaitions and requests and pleadings before anyone can own a gun simply moves the advantage even further to the attacker's side, while leaving the ever growing victim pool at the mercy of the criminal element.
You don't need to give a reason why you want a firearm, but you should know how to use it before you're allowed to purchase it. Why not require gun merchants to take a small training course and upon the sale of the first firearm to someone, the customer needs to take a 30 min training course, sign a paper that says they took the course (which would include safe storage methods) and be on their way? Just an idea, not set in stone... There's lots of things that can be done to help ensure people are safe with firearms that don't hinder the customer, or at least keep the hindrance so minute that only the biggest cunts would possibly complain. Feel free to komplain Kynes.nobody should have to explain why they should be allowed to have a gun, the only time this needs any explanation is after somebody gets shot.
THAT'S your "due diligence" after you shoot somebody, you have to justify it, if you fail to justify your shooting you go to prison and never get to own a gun again.
What the fuck are you talking about? If your guns get stolen and you call the police and they show up and ask you where they were stored, and you point to a hook on the wall next to a broken window, you're a fucking idiot.demanding proof that your gun WONT be used to commit a crime is the cheapest, stupidest and least intelligent argument of the gun control lobby, but because it makes people FEEL like they might be safer, they foolishly accept this faulty premise quite easily, just as you have.
you may get a few deliverance ..skeel like a pig comments from otherswhat? i didnt even post a Minaret, cuz im classy as fuck yo.
i got a celebrity double myself.
people always tell me i look a lot like one of the Beattys
sadly it's Ned Beatty.
and this is why i drink.
I am moved to ask ... which firearm can be routinely used to such distances? N.b. My home state bans fifties, the only arm I've heard might be useful to that distance. That moots "readily available" from my perspective.You are such a dumbass. You can use a firearm readily available to the public offensively out to...2200 meters?
The primary, indeed sole, use of any weapon has always been purely offensive. Defensive tools are collectively called armor.lol The primary usage of firearms has always been offense.
HORSESHIT!What the fuck are you talking about? I said virtually the only thing that could be as efficient at killing people as guns are vehicles. Given the right situation you could run over a lot of people, but they're still not as proficient as firearms. I don't have any idea why the fuck you're talking about the IRS, it has nothing to do with the conversation and is a strawman at best.
Vehicles are typically more expensive than guns and also require licensing, insurance, and have other checks and balances to help prevent accidents/homicides.
so the potential victim should be as defenseless as possible in these spur of the moment attacks, by the careful use of gun safes, gun locks and in the case of washington DC, the disassembly of the firearm to ensure that it cannot "accidentally" put itself back together, jimmy the lock on the gun safe, creep across the house to the second locked ammunition safe, load itself, crawl surreptitiously up Carl Rowan's leg, climb into his hand and then "accidentally" go off when he discovers some teenagers are skinny dipping in his pool...I agree! If someone is straight up out to kill someone, they'll probably do it regardless of what's available. A lot of crimes are crimes of passion though, and happen because of things that are readily available.
and which handgun would that be?You are such a dumbass. You can use a firearm readily available to the public offensively out to...2200 meters? lol The primary usage of firearms has always been offense.
against an unarmed opponent, no. it does not.It takes much less skill and practice to proficiently use a firearm than it does a sword.
but you are SPECIAL, so you can be trusted with this ILLEGAL shotgun...I agree. Having an easily accessible firearm is the best defense against an unknown intruder. Personally I have a Remington Model 870 with a 12" barrel and an adjustable stock with pistol grip. It has a flashlight too. When it's not in use or ready for immediate use, it has a trigger lock on it.
so the continuing expansion of various "Gun Free Zones" and the neverending push by HCI and people like you to increase gun restrictions everywhere, in every way possible hasnt reduced the ability of ordinary people who are not Special Forces Gorrilla Warrior Jeet Kun Do Masters with 263 confrimed kills and a penis registered as a deadly weapon to defend themselves from the ever increasing criminal element, who coincidentally are enabled and encouraged by people (not so coincidentally) like you who promulgate the ridiculous "Socio-Economic Status" defense when any crime occurs?If you're extremely lazy it could. You over exaggerate to the point of absurdity and it really makes your arguments weaker. On this particular issue you have some good points, just don't be stupid about them. "Growing victim pool".... lol Drama Queen...
ANY impediment to the ownership of a firearm can soon become an impassible hurdle. first, "take a class" then it's "Take this SPECIAL CLASS" then it's "Take this 6 week course taught by ONE GUY once a twice a year, with a class size of twenty. heres the 12 year long waiting list." then it's "Take this class. we will call you the next time we hold the class..."You don't need to give a reason why you want a firearm, but you should know how to use it before you're allowed to purchase it. Why not require gun merchants to take a small training course and upon the sale of the first firearm to someone, the customer needs to take a 30 min training course, sign a paper that says they took the course (which would include safe storage methods) and be on their way? Just an idea, not set in stone... There's lots of things that can be done to help ensure people are safe with firearms that don't hinder the customer, or at least keep the hindrance so minute that only the biggest cunts would possibly complain. Feel free to komplain Kynes.
if my guns get stolen i cant call the police, since ill be dead.What the fuck are you talking about? If your guns get stolen and you call the police and they show up and ask you where they were stored, and you point to a hook on the wall next to a broken window, you're a fucking idiot.
If your gun is stolen and you call the police and they show up and your gun safe is broken into, or you tell the police you had trigger locks on them, you're not an idiot.
no. crime cannot be "avoided" thats stupid. crime can be REDUCED, but not by attacking gun owners, but it CAN be reduced by locking up those who commit crimes for significant periods, and preventing the irresponsible idiots who promulgate the "SES" defense from flapping their meat holes about how rough life is for the "victims of the system" (which is Reverse-Correct Info-Speak for "Perpetrators Of Crime")The entire point to what I was saying is that crimes can be avoided by making sure people are responsible with their firearms. Not taking them away, not creating mandatory inspections, not making a firearms gestapo, or any other ridiculous absurdity you want to dream up.
it is ONE slippery slope with many paths of traverse. but you know that, anyone who can read knows that, but you love to flap your gums and make snarky comments. imma have to put you back on ignore and lock it down.so many slippery slopes in there, good thing i wore my golf cleats.
can't have anyone pointing out the nonsense you babble on about.it is ONE slippery slope with many paths of traverse. but you know that, anyone who can read knows that, but you love to flap your gums and make snarky comments. imma have to put you back on ignore and lock it down.
We have a rule here, one in the perp, one in the wall.An unloaded gun is a worthless gun. I see way too many people buy expensive guns and put cheap bullets in them. Get the Blue Glaser bullets. The 40 cal puts out 34% more muzzle energy than a 45...not to mention it unloads all of its energy into the target. Ultimately the people that I have found that hate guns the most are people who break into homes, cars , ect... they really get pissed that someone would take their worthless life because they choose to be a parasite.
citation required..let's use mineon the real cherie,
if you carry a Taser or Stun Gun and believe it will disable an attacker, it WILL NOT
some perople. (like myself) are not nearly as vulnerable to electrical shock as others.
i have had a stun gun used on me in an attempted robbery, and it didnt do SHIT. i kicked a mudhole in that dude's ass and then stomped it dry.
i even got tased by a cop for a demonstration of their "non-lethal" secret weapon against crime.
i was supposed to "come at him" and i was able to take the thing right from his hand despite his repeated jolts. the little darts were more painful than most of the shocks
i have been shocked by too many ignition coils to even give a shit about electrical voltage any more, and physical mass greatly reduces the effect of electrical shock devices as weapons.
if you dont want a gun, get some Top Quality capsicum pepper spray, the "Bear Mace" type. not the weak ass hot-sauce dispensers most women carry.
Fired at around 45 degrees I think you'll find a large proportion of guns capable of causing harm at such distancesI am moved to ask ... which firearm can be routinely used to such distances? N.b. My home state bans fifties, the only arm I've heard might be useful to that distance. That moots "readily available" from my perspective.The primary, indeed sole, use of any weapon has always been purely offensive. Defensive tools are collectively called armor.
so many slippery slopes in there, good thing i wore my golf cleats.
Ban golf clubz!!Please don't get any ideas about using lethal force with your golf weapons.
California man accused of killing Chihuahua with golf club ...
www.foxnews.com/us/2012/...killing-chihuahua-with-golf-club