How many democrats own guns?

[Slade3200]

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

OK....
Cause X does not prove effect Y because there may be other factors that contribute to effect Y.

VT gun laws are very loose. VT gun-related crime rates are very low.
CA gun laws are very tight. CA Gun-related crime rates are very high.
if tight gun laws means lower gun related crime rates, why is VTs gun-related crime rates so low?
Other factors.

Thus, it is impossible to soundly argue the tight gun laws in other first world countries is the reason they have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have. Correlation doe snot prove causation.

You are correct about the other factors, which is why the VT and CA comparison is hard to digest... Those two states are completely different. The majority of the gun violence in CA comes from the over-crowded cities or areas that gang presence is high. VT does not have a comparable scenario, not because of gun laws, but because of its demographics.

If you are running a town where gang violence and crime are very high you are going to have different needs and approaches to tackle the problems than if you are the sheriff of Hicksville VT. If you were running the "high crime" city would you drop gun control regulations and allow any thug off the street to go buy a machine gun? Sure many of them can buy their guns illegally or will steal one, but really think about that scenario.... what would you do?

What we keep telling you is the answer....

1) if you catch someone using a gun for crime, arrest them.

2) if you catch a felon with a gun, arrest them...

3) Put them in jail for a long time...like the Japanese.....30 years for actual gun crimes.....

Just today, our Chicago Police Commissioner, once again, bitched about the shitty job Chicago prosecutors and Judges are doing with repeat gun offenders.....putting them back on the streets over and over again.....

That's right....repeat gun offenders..that means criminals who are already barred from buying, owning or carrying guns, who get caught, again, and then are released on bail and then get light sentences...

That is the problem..that you guys refuse to understand......instead, you worry about John Q. Citizen filling out another form that the criminals never bother with........

The key is putting heavier sentences for gun crimes and focusing on gun crimes for the longer sentences.......I have posted articles on how felony gun possession is a midemeanor in major cities...even with the blood baths these cities have become.....with all of their gun control laws.....

I agree with all your points

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

Have they always had a fraction of the gun violence we have or is it only since their gun bans?

One thing we do know is that the murder rate in the UK is virtually the same as it was in 1950 and that even after the gun bans of 1968 murder rates still rose in the 80s and 90s

Our murder rate is now what it was in 1950 and has been dropping steadily since the 90s without any European or Aussie style gun bans

So our murder rate was higher than the UK before the UK put in place their ultra strict gun laws and we have found that over the last 60 years both the UK and the US have seen a peak in murder rates in the 80s to the 90s and a steady decline back to 1950 levels

So tell me since their gun laws resulted in the same murder rate trend as ours how can you say their gun laws reduced murder rates when our murder rates mirrored them albeit at a slightly higher level from a higher baseline

Could it be we will always have a higher murder rate than the UK or France because of other sociological factors than merely guns?

Yeah, it's possible. They seem a little more enlightened than average Americans.

I don't know why you would want to compare the US to UK murder rates. We're almost 4x higher than they are. We might have both peaked at about the same time but if anything, I think it shows that a major factor working against us is the widespread availability of guns.

The whole enlightened thing is just an opinion.

I guess you missed the point of my reply.

I really don't care what the murder rates are. You want to compare the US to the UK as far as violent crime goes that's fine but you can't use absolute numbers

Starting at a baseline like I did 60 years ago and looking at the trends before and after the UK established it's very strict gun laws in 1968 shows that the gun laws did not really have any effect on the murder rate

We started from a higher baseline but the trends mirrored each other

So if you want to speculate why we have a higher baseline we can do that but I don't think it's guns that are responsible for that and that it is better explained by various cultural, sociological and demographic factors

 

[Skull Pilot]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

You truly are a dumbshit if you really think your little games are winning an argument. You exude traits of an insecure short guy or a guy with a very small penis... perhaps both.

Funny how the guy who thinks he's winning the argument has to resort to the juvenile penis statements.
Don't you think if you were rally winning the debate you wouldn't need to be so childish?

 

[Conservative65]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

You truly are a dumbshit if you really think your little games are winning an argument. You exude traits of an insecure short guy or a guy with a very small penis... perhaps both.

Funny how the guy who thinks he's winning the argument has to resort to the juvenile penis statements.
Don't you think if you were rally winning the debate you wouldn't need to be so childish?

They're projecting about themselves.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I asked the question AFTER you said if it saved just one life, it would be successful. I didn't bait a thing. I went on your response, then you were afraid to answer my question.

When you contradict yourself, you lose credibility. I provided the number of 11,208 for 2013 and asked you what you would find acceptable. You said if it save ONE life, it was a success. 11,208 minus 1 = 11,207. Now you say it isn't a success. It would be what you say I'm trying to do if you didn't know the 11,208 number BEFORE making you one less would be successful statement. You try to change what you said now. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You didn't say let's do better. You said one less is a success.

What it amounts to is you ran your mouth without thinking and when you know you were had, you run like a little bitch.

Can you read? I said it was a success if you saved a life, and don't pretend like the whole line of questioning wasn't a bait so you could give that same answer... Your little games don't get either of us anywhere, lets just be straight forward from now on shall we?

Explain how something can be a success if only one life is saved yet 11,207 are still killed.

I was straightforward and provided you with all the information you needed. You gave an answer and now aren't man enough to stand behind it. Coward.

Easy. A life was saved

Guns in this country are used 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times stopping mass shooters......

gun murder in 2014... 8,124


so...according to your own standards....

1,500,000 v. 8,124...

guns in the hands of normal people far outweigh those in the hands of criminals.

According to Slade, knowing the actual number of gun homicides in 2013 was 11,208, said ONE less using laws he supported would be successful. To me, that means he's willing to call 11,207 a success since it's one less than the actual number. You?

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is no way that the only gun owners in this country are republicans. There is just to many guns being sold right now for that to be true so I wonder how many democrats feel comfortable with strict gun laws? Some of these laws are so tough that it makes it impossible to even buy one in some states (California). Do you feel comfortable with that and/or do you feel comfortable with a complete gun ban that many other 'liberals' want. I myself own a lot of guns and was able to get them with little ease (background check). I really didn't like the background check but it appears that most polls seem to think this is OK. I'm wondering how many of you secretly wish you didn't have to go through the hassle of a background check?

I've owned guns all my life and I wouldn't vote for a god dammed Republican on my death bed. I have a .38 Chief's Special, a .30 .30 saddle rifle and a Remington long barreled 12 gauge. Nobody who's just an everyday citizen needs a weapon like the AR-15 and the damn things should be taken out of gun stores all over America. The NRA is nothing more than a branch of the gun manufacturers and that shit should be stopped too.

I hope you do not go anywhere near your guns when you are that blitzed...

 

[Slade3200]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

You truly are a dumbshit if you really think your little games are winning an argument. You exude traits of an insecure short guy or a guy with a very small penis... perhaps both.

Funny how the guy who thinks he's winning the argument has to resort to the juvenile penis statements.
Don't you think if you were rally winning the debate you wouldn't need to be so childish?

Nothing wrong with throwing a little truth and humor in there

 

[JoeNormal]

All laws are nothing more than deterrents.

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

And you haven't studied the issue........

Britain banned and confiscated guns in the 1990s....their gun crime rate stayed the same...in fact, it went up 4% last year and they are seeing more fully automatic weapons on the street.......

our non gun murder rate is higher than their total murder rate.....guns are not the issue....



The thing that has kept the gun murder rate of these countries low is their culture.....in particular, their criminal culture...they do not commit murder as easily or as often as American inner city criminals do.....trade our criminals for theirs and our gun crime rate would be lower than theirs.....

Guns do not cause people to commit crime.......

Who cares if Britain's gun crime rate stayed the same, it's a fourth of ours. That's the important part. And it's because they have a higher quality of criminals? LOL.

 

[JoeNormal]

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

You understand that correlation does not equal causation, right?
You don't?
Compare and contrast the gun laws in VT and CA, then compare and contrast gun-related crime rates in VT and CA.

I don't have a ton of time to spend on this. Give me the readers digest version of the point you're trying to make.

Vermont....and the city of Baltimore have almost the exact same population number....

Vermont....almost zero gun control laws....

Baltimore....gun registration, assault weapon ban, magazine limits, waiting periods, finger printing.....

Baltimore, a city, has a higher gun crime and murder rate than Vermont....which has almost zero gun control laws....if what you say is true....the state of Vermont should be a gun murder hell hole....yet it isn't....and Baltimore should be heaven...and it is hell....

Vermont is a state of socialist, peace loving hippies. Maybe there's something to it.

 

[2aguy]

Oh, no - not at all.
Laws create a basis for the state to punish people from exceeding the norms set by society, usually by violating the rights of others.
This MAY deter some from doing so, but the intent of the law is to draw a line and punish those who cross it; they certainty do not prevent anyone from crossing said line any more than a 55 MPH sign prevents you from driving 70.

And so, again, The ACTUAL argument is there's no reason to have laws that don't do what they are supposed to do, especially when they restrict the rights of the law abiding

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

And you haven't studied the issue........

Britain banned and confiscated guns in the 1990s....their gun crime rate stayed the same...in fact, it went up 4% last year and they are seeing more fully automatic weapons on the street.......

our non gun murder rate is higher than their total murder rate.....guns are not the issue....



The thing that has kept the gun murder rate of these countries low is their culture.....in particular, their criminal culture...they do not commit murder as easily or as often as American inner city criminals do.....trade our criminals for theirs and our gun crime rate would be lower than theirs.....

Guns do not cause people to commit crime.......

Who cares if Britain's gun crime rate stayed the same, it's a fourth of ours. That's the important part. And it's because they have a higher quality of criminals? LOL.

Yeah....you didn't get it.....

Britain banned guns in 1996.....they confiscated guns....

Their gun crime rate spiked for years after they took away the guns...do you understand that?

Then it returned to the same level it was at before they confiscated their guns...do you understand that?

Nothing changed in their gun crime rate after they got rid of guns in the hands of normal gun owners.....criminals still got guns....

Last year.....their gun crime rate went up 4%...their violent crime rate went up 27%... do you understand....access to guns for criminals did not change after they disarmed normal, law abiding gun owners.....

Britain shows you guys are wrong.....

We increased gun ownership and the number of people carrying guns for self defense...and our gun murder rate went down....again, showing that you anti gunners do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Campbell]

One of my gay friends, who used to go to the Pulse Nightclub, asked me to teach him how to shoot and advise him on what gun to buy. I have taken him out to the range twice now and he loves it. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be voting for Hillary in the next election. He's gay, he has been brainwashed into thinking that the GOP hates gays so he must vote Democrat. I never speak about politics in social gatherings so we don't talk about it except that I have told him that if he wants to buy a gun, he needs to do it before the election.

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms? You right wing pricks make my arse crave lime juice!! If she's trying to take rapid fire combat weapons out of the hands of ordinary citizens..."Praise Be To Hey Zeus!!"

I have a suggestion....if you're really interested in combat weapons.....join the goddam army!

 

[M14 Shooter]

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms?

It is impossible to argue against the fact that Hillary seeks to impose further limitations on the right to arms.
One such proposal supported by her involves the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

You may now continue to lie to yourself at your leisure.

 

[Conservative65]

I posed a situation to you and YOU said if laws you support prevented one death, YOU would consider it a success. When asked if you thought only having had 11,207 in 2013 vs. 11,208 was a success, you ran from your previous claim and refused to answer. That's why I can't support you gun control freaks with what you say. You make statements knowing all the numbers then, when a question is posed to you based on what you said, you run from it and won't stand up to defend your claims.

Are you slow? I didn't run from anything... You were completely transparent in your attempt to bait with this question so you could comeback with this response. You are distorting the conversation to try and "win" an argument. Grow up.

If you need a stupid answer... if 11,207 people died I would not say it was a success, we would need to keep chipping away at the problem. If saying that because of a law we put in place 11,207 were killed instead of 11,208.. Then I would say we could pat ourselves on the back for saving that one life but lets do better. That one life could be somebody YOU love

I was transparent when I gave you the number of actual gun homicides BEFORE asking you how many it would take for you to consider what you support was a good law. To have not been transparent would mean I was hiding something from you. I didn't. You said ONE less would be successful. That means even if 11,207 were still killed you would call it a success. It can't be distorted when ALL the information you needed to answer was there for you BEFORE you answered.

YOU'VE been had and simply won't admit it. Maybe you can't do math or you're simply not man enough to acknowledge your own statements. Either way you said one less was successful knowing that 11,208 was the actual number.

In case you didn't know. You don't have to acknowledge it. It's on here for all to see.

You truly are a dumbshit if you really think your little games are winning an argument. You exude traits of an insecure short guy or a guy with a very small penis... perhaps both.

Funny how the guy who thinks he's winning the argument has to resort to the juvenile penis statements.
Don't you think if you were rally winning the debate you wouldn't need to be so childish?

Nothing wrong with throwing a little truth and humor in there

More like projecting the truth about yourself.

 

[Conservative65]

One of my gay friends, who used to go to the Pulse Nightclub, asked me to teach him how to shoot and advise him on what gun to buy. I have taken him out to the range twice now and he loves it. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be voting for Hillary in the next election. He's gay, he has been brainwashed into thinking that the GOP hates gays so he must vote Democrat. I never speak about politics in social gatherings so we don't talk about it except that I have told him that if he wants to buy a gun, he needs to do it before the election.

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms? You right wing pricks make my arse crave lime juice!! If she's trying to take rapid fire combat weapons out of the hands of ordinary citizens..."Praise Be To Hey Zeus!!"

I have a suggestion....if you're really interested in combat weapons.....join the goddam army!

I have a suggestion. If you don't think I should own a particular type gun, come and try to take it.

 

[2aguy]

One of my gay friends, who used to go to the Pulse Nightclub, asked me to teach him how to shoot and advise him on what gun to buy. I have taken him out to the range twice now and he loves it. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be voting for Hillary in the next election. He's gay, he has been brainwashed into thinking that the GOP hates gays so he must vote Democrat. I never speak about politics in social gatherings so we don't talk about it except that I have told him that if he wants to buy a gun, he needs to do it before the election.

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms? You right wing pricks make my arse crave lime juice!! If she's trying to take rapid fire combat weapons out of the hands of ordinary citizens..."Praise Be To Hey Zeus!!"

I have a suggestion....if you're really interested in combat weapons.....join the goddam army!

She I'll appoint 2-4 justices and they have already said I. Their dissents in heller and Macdonald that they will.....

Then, she will get congress to repeal the Lawful Commerce in Arms act which keeps anti gunners from suing gun makers out of existence with fake lawsuits.....

The she plans on increasing taxes and fees on every aspect of owning guns, from the guns themselves to the ammo....

You guys have no clue or you are lying...

 

[Campbell]

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms?

It is impossible to argue against the fact that Hillary seeks to impose further limitations on the right to arms.
One such proposal supported by her involves the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

You may now continue to lie to yourself at your leisure.

Talk about lying.....you're worse than Donald Trump.

 

[Campbell]

One of my gay friends, who used to go to the Pulse Nightclub, asked me to teach him how to shoot and advise him on what gun to buy. I have taken him out to the range twice now and he loves it. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be voting for Hillary in the next election. He's gay, he has been brainwashed into thinking that the GOP hates gays so he must vote Democrat. I never speak about politics in social gatherings so we don't talk about it except that I have told him that if he wants to buy a gun, he needs to do it before the election.

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms? You right wing pricks make my arse crave lime juice!! If she's trying to take rapid fire combat weapons out of the hands of ordinary citizens..."Praise Be To Hey Zeus!!"

I have a suggestion....if you're really interested in combat weapons.....join the goddam army!

I have a suggestion. If you don't think I should own a particular type gun, come and try to take it.

If I decide to take your ass out you'll never even know what put you to sleep.

 

[JoeNormal]

There's one thing that maybe I can agree with you upon. Thanks to the widespread availability of guns due to our pea-brained gun culture, it's relatively easy for a whack job to obtain a gun and kill a bunch of people. It's quite possible that at this point, the genie is out of the bottle and there are no laws that will fix it.

Not sure why you think laws could fix it in the first place.

Because other first world countries that have had more restrictive gun laws over time have only a fraction of the gun violence that we have.

And you haven't studied the issue........

Britain banned and confiscated guns in the 1990s....their gun crime rate stayed the same...in fact, it went up 4% last year and they are seeing more fully automatic weapons on the street.......

our non gun murder rate is higher than their total murder rate.....guns are not the issue....



The thing that has kept the gun murder rate of these countries low is their culture.....in particular, their criminal culture...they do not commit murder as easily or as often as American inner city criminals do.....trade our criminals for theirs and our gun crime rate would be lower than theirs.....

Guns do not cause people to commit crime.......

Who cares if Britain's gun crime rate stayed the same, it's a fourth of ours. That's the important part. And it's because they have a higher quality of criminals? LOL.

Yeah....you didn't get it.....

Britain banned guns in 1996.....they confiscated guns....

Their gun crime rate spiked for years after they took away the guns...do you understand that?

Then it returned to the same level it was at before they confiscated their guns...do you understand that?

Nothing changed in their gun crime rate after they got rid of guns in the hands of normal gun owners.....criminals still got guns....

Last year.....their gun crime rate went up 4%...their violent crime rate went up 27%... do you understand....access to guns for criminals did not change after they disarmed normal, law abiding gun owners.....

Britain shows you guys are wrong.....

We increased gun ownership and the number of people carrying guns for self defense...and our gun murder rate went down....again, showing that you anti gunners do not know what you are talking about.

So do they have the 'right' number of guns now? Or would they be even safer with more guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms?

It is impossible to argue against the fact that Hillary seeks to impose further limitations on the right to arms.
One such proposal supported by her involves the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.
You may now continue to lie to yourself at your leisure.

Talk about lying.....you're worse than Donald Trump.

Noting I said is a lie.
We both know this.
Difference is, I am honest enough to admit it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One of my gay friends, who used to go to the Pulse Nightclub, asked me to teach him how to shoot and advise him on what gun to buy. I have taken him out to the range twice now and he loves it. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be voting for Hillary in the next election. He's gay, he has been brainwashed into thinking that the GOP hates gays so he must vote Democrat. I never speak about politics in social gatherings so we don't talk about it except that I have told him that if he wants to buy a gun, he needs to do it before the election.

So the implication is that Hillary will take away American's right to own firearms? You right wing pricks make my arse crave lime juice!! If she's trying to take rapid fire combat weapons out of the hands of ordinary citizens..."Praise Be To Hey Zeus!!"

I have a suggestion....if you're really interested in combat weapons.....join the goddam army!

I have a suggestion. If you don't think I should own a particular type gun, come and try to take it.

If I decide to take your ass out you'll never even know what put you to sleep.

Oh look... an internet ninja.
Be scared.