LibertyLemming
VIP Member
If Obama and Reid and all the clowns in Congress and Government get to protect themselves, their property, their families, and stand their ground, armed to the teeth, than so should you and I have that ability.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is a good argument for most handguns and shotguns, but it doesn't address military style weapons with high capacity magazines. I am not a gun control nut, but I wonder if some reasonable middle ground exists?
That is a good argument for most handguns and shotguns, but it doesn't address military style weapons with high capacity magazines. I am not a gun control nut, but I wonder if some reasonable middle ground exists?
If Obama and Reid and all the clowns in Congress and Government get to protect themselves, their property, their families, and stand their ground, armed to the teeth, than so should you and I have that ability.
If Obama and Reid and all the clowns in Congress and Government get to protect themselves, their property, their families, and stand their ground, armed to the teeth, than so should you and I have that ability.
even felons?
If Obama and Reid and all the clowns in Congress and Government get to protect themselves, their property, their families, and stand their ground, armed to the teeth, than so should you and I have that ability.
even felons?
Yes. I think that if someone has paid their punishment in prison or restitution or whatever the agreement was that they should retain the full rights of a human being when they are released. Plus, even if I said no, if they want a weapon they will get one anyway. Laws only hamper the law abiding citizens, criminals live as if the law didn't exist already.
even felons?
Yes. I think that if someone has paid their punishment in prison or restitution or whatever the agreement was that they should retain the full rights of a human being when they are released. Plus, even if I said no, if they want a weapon they will get one anyway. Laws only hamper the law abiding citizens, criminals live as if the law didn't exist already.
Even napalm?
Yes. I think that if someone has paid their punishment in prison or restitution or whatever the agreement was that they should retain the full rights of a human being when they are released. Plus, even if I said no, if they want a weapon they will get one anyway. Laws only hamper the law abiding citizens, criminals live as if the law didn't exist already.
Even napalm?
Smells like victory to me....
If Obama and Reid and all the clowns in Congress and Government get to protect themselves, their property, their families, and stand their ground, armed to the teeth, than so should you and I have that ability.
even felons?
Even napalm?
Smells like victory to me....
Yes. Even Nukes. Listen, most people, like myself, aren't going to be using napalm on folks. Granted there are some people who will, many of which you probably voted for at one point or another, but that doesn't mean we need to keep it out of everyone's hands and only in the hands of people proven to use things like napalm and nuclear weapons. I can look up how to make either of those right now and if I had the means acquire the weapons and make them. My point is that you a) aren't stopping criminals and b) are letting proven murderers keep their arsenal and finally c) restricting all people's liberty isn't going to fix the morality problems of some
If Obama and Reid and all the clowns in Congress and Government get to protect themselves, their property, their families, and stand their ground, armed to the teeth, than so should you and I have that ability.
even felons?
I was just gonna ask the same thing. Gun owners go along with banning guns to some criminals but not others. Martha Stewart is a felon while most convicted drunk drivers are not. And yet which showed more disregard for human life.
That is a good argument for most handguns and shotguns, but it doesn't address military style weapons with high capacity magazines. I am not a gun control nut, but I wonder if some reasonable middle ground exists?
Smells like victory to me....
Yes. Even Nukes. Listen, most people, like myself, aren't going to be using napalm on folks. Granted there are some people who will, many of which you probably voted for at one point or another, but that doesn't mean we need to keep it out of everyone's hands and only in the hands of people proven to use things like napalm and nuclear weapons. I can look up how to make either of those right now and if I had the means acquire the weapons and make them. My point is that you a) aren't stopping criminals and b) are letting proven murderers keep their arsenal and finally c) restricting all people's liberty isn't going to fix the morality problems of some
You're nuts.
Yes. Even Nukes. Listen, most people, like myself, aren't going to be using napalm on folks. Granted there are some people who will, many of which you probably voted for at one point or another, but that doesn't mean we need to keep it out of everyone's hands and only in the hands of people proven to use things like napalm and nuclear weapons. I can look up how to make either of those right now and if I had the means acquire the weapons and make them. My point is that you a) aren't stopping criminals and b) are letting proven murderers keep their arsenal and finally c) restricting all people's liberty isn't going to fix the morality problems of some
You're nuts.
Care to elaborate?
You're nuts.
Care to elaborate?
You're fuckin' nuts.
That is a good argument for most handguns and shotguns, but it doesn't address military style weapons with high capacity magazines. I am not a gun control nut, but I wonder if some reasonable middle ground exists?
Care to elaborate?
You're fuckin' nuts.
If wanting the same liberties as those citizens in power is fuckin' nuts I'll take it.
You're fuckin' nuts.
If wanting the same liberties as those citizens in power is fuckin' nuts I'll take it.
Okay, I'm sorry. I was being flippant. I really do understand your point, but it just isn't a simple matter. When you have large populations living in concentrated areas (i.e., the United States), it is simply wrong to not restrict the ownership of, say, sarin gas. You know that's true.
Gun control is a matter of determining what should be regulated. Personally, I think the better method would be to severely cut the military and police budgets and decriminalize many non-victim crimes.
That is a good argument for most handguns and shotguns, but it doesn't address military style weapons with high capacity magazines. I am not a gun control nut, but I wonder if some reasonable middle ground exists?