desert dude
Well-Known Member
How many people did the Tsarniev brothers kill with a gun at the end of the boston marathon? Was the elder Tsarniev brother sane?
Ban pressure cookers!
You're a complete moron, and your wife dresses you funny.
Here is why "gun registration" is a freedom killer...
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Ban pressure cookers!
You're a complete moron, and your wife dresses you funny.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
two.
are you still too afraid to answer a simple question, just like the other day when you refused to answer a question that would showcase your racist double standards?
you are such a pussy. too bad you can't shoot questions, right?
No, I am pretty sure he killed someone. The background check stopped no one, because it doesn't stop people intent on getting a gun in order to carry out their twisted plans. It never has and it never will, you just proved it.
Oh and BTW, Lanza never refused a background check either, he just decided not to do it. You make it sound like they brought out the paperwork and he refused to fill it out and wanted the gun anyway. He just didn't want to wait for it. Massachusetts is weird that way. Strict gun laws.
HE could have been trying to purchase a .22 single shot for all you know. It doesn't matter anyway since he never even used a rifle in ANY of the killings, not a single shot. He reloaded his pistols numerous times because that is so fast and so easy to do and they were ALL 10 round magazines!! WHAT???? Yep, in Massachusetts you can't have anything over 10 rounds, been that way for 20 years, boo hoo all your argument dashed upon the rocks of fail.
Lanza's mom had a gun safe, you should really try to do your homework.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/newtown-shooting-search-warrants_n_2970351.html
desert dude
Well-Known Member
None were killed with a gun at the boston marathon. The murders you are talking about happened hours later at a different location. The elder Tsarniev was a schizoid.
You are a hopeless loser, and you have buck teeth.
MydogCody
Member
Great point Desert Dude!
If you want to take my guns it would be from my corpse. If any government wants to disarm their citizens then they have grand plans of making us their little bitch. Registration, as Desert Dude put it, is the first step in knowing where to confiscate your guns at a later date. There is no other reason for the government to know where your guns reside. Its doubtful, in a country where there is almost a gun for every person (U.S.), that the government will disarm their citizens.
Anybody who is for disarming honest citizens of their guns is an anti-constitutional radical piece of shit who should not live in this country.
canndo
Well-Known Member
There were five times more murders committed by knives than rifles in the US in 2010.
Note, these figures do not break down how many of the 358 were actually assault rifles.
In comparison, over 270 American die each day from prescription drug overdose.
If the democrats are so worried about protecting and saving lives, the would give up this political power play and concentrate their efforts on an issue that actually warrants it.
I will ask again, do you believe in Voter ID? I won't let you compartmentalize here.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're scared of questions and a homicidal white supremacist.
see4
Well-Known Member
I haven't had to since I've had my CCW.
That's not my question though. My question is, "do you think we shouldn't have background checks?"
desert dude
Well-Known Member
What about them? Are there any that work?
see4
Well-Known Member
Yes. There are.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, you have them on your guns? How reliable are they? How do get your gun to scan your retina, sounds kinda scary?
see4
Well-Known Member
I do not have them on my guns. I have not seen a retina scanner on a gun, but I have seen and used a fingerprint scanned gun. It's rather bulky and forces you to hold the gun in an odd way. It is reliable but renders the gun a little ineffective from my point of view.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Do you think we would all be safer if your were forced to have them on your guns? Should you be forced to retrofit? Should all 270 million guns in current circulation in the US be forced to retrofit? Do you think such a demand would be an "infringement"?
wow! all that for my little quote?..i understand the tech is not perfect however it will prevent those who are NOT owners access..much like an ipad retina scan..you can program it to stay unlocked for selected time periods..why are you not willing to embrace the landscape of new ideas and compromise?
see4
Well-Known Member
No I don't. They could be hacked or disabled. The good citizens would be at a disadvantage.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, like the rest of us, you just want to make certain that mass murderers are properly armed?
redeyedfrog
Well-Known Member
The cops and military are using (trialling) proximity devices
that have a ring, watch, dog-tags that won't fire unless the are a
pre prescribed distance. So you can steal my gun but you can't shoot
me or anyone else without the transmitter, fingerprint scanners, lol retina
scanners are a waste of time, Hard to use and unreliable tech, far out
my computer at work takes 2-3 goes to log in sometimes if my fingers are sweaty
or wet, don't have time to wipe fingers in a gun fight or a home invasion.
that have a ring, watch, dog-tags that won't fire unless the are a
pre prescribed distance. So you can steal my gun but you can't shoot
me or anyone else without the transmitter, fingerprint scanners, lol retina
scanners are a waste of time, Hard to use and unreliable tech, far out
my computer at work takes 2-3 goes to log in sometimes if my fingers are sweaty
or wet, don't have time to wipe fingers in a gun fight or a home invasion.
see4
Well-Known Member
No. Mass murderers will get their hands on guns no matter what. If they can't get their hands on guns they may consider murder or violence by other means. But if we make guns more easily accessible...you know the story.