gun control nuts

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Why don’t you tell everybody what you’re trying to say, Queenie!

Must be PMS!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSH!!

Everyone wants to keep innocent people from being victims of gun violence. I think the right has a very strong argument; laws will only make it more difficult for law abiding people to enjoy their 2A right without decreases the ability of criminals, who do not give any regard to the law, to aquire guns. The right does embellish too, however. I've watched a few of the nra commercials and just cringe.

Trump wants to billed a wall while the guns that Obama lost are being smuggled in tunnels.

Both sides have and continue to fuck up.

The left feels banning "assault" rifles, high capacity mags, and implementing other laws. would reduce gun violence . The left uses statements like, "it doesn't happen in other countries," to support banning them. Those statements get shot down, pardon the pun, almost immediately. They could at least use real numbers.

Plus no one gave a shit, or for that matter heard about it if they did care, when an inner city school playground was shot to hell with a Tech 9 or fully auto oozie bought off the back of a van.

How did that van get a FFL? Why would criminals use fire arms registered to themselves? I'm so confused as to how that van stays in business.

You should quit letting others use your computer for posting on here!

But if you've just been making up shit like your other Amigas ... then go ahead and confess ... that you are a lying POS ... LIBERAL! Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Now if you want to reveal my personal information on this board you can suffer the consequences, because you have no permission or waiver from me to do so!"

If you can come up with the exact thread and post where I said that, I will admit that I was wrong and actually did state that.

Until then, I consider YOU to be the liar. As usual. And also as usual, you failed to address and of my other comments/questions directed to you. Lying, ignorant, redneck hillbilly.

I have not read all of this thread . . .so my apologies if this is redundant.

This is a much larger issue than just our collective and individual right to posses firearms.

Sure the Second Amendment is just as vulnerable to being abolished as the prohibition of alcohol was. And yes, if the Second Amendment were to be abolished the doors to real gun control would be wide open.

HOWEVER: if the dam is broken on changing The Bill of Rights, then the n all of them become at risk; the First, Fourth and Fifth . ..all fsvorites of the left, could be revoked.

No other country in the world has all of the rights guaranteed to the common folks here in the ZUSA by these first ten amendments.

During the Cold War era, possession of an unregistered typewriter could lead to prison. Holding church services at home could bring the same. Even the UK doesn't have many of these rights enshrined in a basic law of the land.

Everyone wants to keep innocent people from being victims of gun violence. I think the right has a very strong argument; laws will only make it more difficult for law abiding people to enjoy their 2A right without decreases the ability of criminals, who do not give any regard to the law, to aquire guns. The right does embellish too, however. I've watched a few of the nra commercials and just cringe. Originally Posted by grean

And that's the simple fact that liberals don't understand.
WE ALREADY have 10000+ laws on the books in regards to guns, crime and such, and NONE OF THEM prevent the crooks getting the guns they want via the black market..
SO WHAT GOOD is making yet more laws going to do?
NONE!

it makes them feel good that they accomplished something.

they don't care about the result of their actions, but their intent is what matters to them.

And that's the simple fact that liberals don't understand.
WE ALREADY have 10000+ laws on the books in regards to guns, crime and such, and NONE OF THEM prevent the crooks getting the guns they want via the black market..
SO WHAT GOOD is making yet more laws going to do?
NONE! Originally Posted by garhkal

M-16s and AK-47s are, for most people in this country, banned BY LAW. To the best of my knowledge, neither weapon has been used in a homicide in this country since the ban went in to effect. Now I certainly could be wrong and either the M-16 or AK-47 has been used in a handful of homicides in the decades since they were banned, but they have not been the weapon of choice in mass murders. In my opinion, this shows that a ban can work effectively.

Clearly making something illegal works ^^^^^^^^^^^^ just look to DUI Typical libertart thinking more laws, taxs to support the laws , Doesn't work

Clearly making something illegal works ^^^^^^^^^^^^ just look to DUI Typical libertart thinking more laws, taxs to support the laws , Doesn't work Originally Posted by rexdutchman

What the FUCK does any of that mean?

Deep breath. Dictionary. Collect thoughts. Repost.

M-16s and AK-47s are, for most people in this country, banned BY LAW. To the best of my knowledge, neither weapon has been used in a homicide in this country since the ban went in to effect. Now I certainly could be wrong and either the M-16 or AK-47 has been used in a handful of homicides in the decades since they were banned, but they have not been the weapon of choice in mass murders. In my opinion, this shows that a ban can work effectively. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It would be interested to see the stats on m-16, ak-47, and other automatic weapons that are used in crimes.

Unfortunately when I googled it, only "assault rifle" results were returned. That misnomer has made that specific stat on m16s or ak47s hard to find.

The FBI report I found only breaks down crime star by broad category like handgun, rifle, and shotgun.

The number of crimes committed by a rifle, where M16s and AK47s would be included are relatively low.

In general law enforcement officers are not worried about semiautomatic rifles, or "assault rifles". They feel a ban on them would have either no effect or a negative effect on crime rates.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IB,

Obama never attempted to push legislation to regulate 2A more.

The Brady gun control group gave him an F.


However, Bush while generally loosening gun control, he did say that he would sign an "assault weapon" ban should it reach his desk.

The argument for 2A is strong enough with real facts.

No need to push false propaganda.

IB,

Obama never attempted to push legislation to regulate 2A more.

The Brady gun control group gave him an F.


However, Bush while generally loosening gun control, did day that he would sign an "assault weapon" ban should it reach his desk.

The argument for 2A is strong enough with real facts.

No need to push false propaganda. Originally Posted by grean

It's not "false propaganda", per the lib-retard fact checkers at Politifact. Suck it up and deal with reality.

It's not "false propaganda", per the lib-retard fact checkers at Politifact. Suck it up and deal with reality.


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong again. See link.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/15/nra-right-obama-coming-our-guns/

Why do you think Obama tried to restrict gun rights?

Instead of a picture, could you point to some legislation he signed to restrict our 2A right, please? He did sign a law that allowed guns in national parks! In other words he lifted a law that restricted gun rights.

Back what you say with proof.

Wrong again. See link.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ming-our-guns/

Why do you think Obama tried to restrict gun rights?

Instead of a picture, could you point to some legislation he signed to restrict our 2A right, please? He did sign a law that allowed guns in national parks! In other words he lifted a law that restricted gun rights.

Back what you say with proof. Originally Posted by grean

Go fuck yourself, puke green. You wanted to know the fucking statistics on AK-47s and M-16s involved in murders, puke green. AK-47s and M-16s are a sub group of "rifles", puke green, and the statistics -- verified by lib-retard fact checkers -- show that in 2011 rifles (which would include any AK-47s and M-16s) were involved in fewer murders than cutlery, puke green. Your dissembling attempt to change the topic to some fucking thing Odumbo did or did not do and deny the fact in 2011 rifles were involved in fewer murders than cutlery show you to be a dissembling, lib-retarded, cowardly liar, puke green.