NRA receives surge in donations.

[Taz]

Actually, where I live, I NEED a car. No public transport... in my small town. You keep failing badly, please try again soon.

Why don't you just walk or ride a bicycle? A small town, you waste money just to putz around. Why do you want to infringe on my right to CHOOSE, what I want to purchase or not. You sure don't act like a libertarian but more like a Fascist..

You're right to choose what you want has already been infringed, as you can't buy an AA missile or a nuke or a cluster bomb or a mine or... So spare me the fake outrage.

And the liberals say i am extreme. I talk about a hunting rifle, and you a flaming liberal talk about nukes and missiles. You are the one showing indignation for people buying what they want to. You are the one who wants to take their right away. Libertarian? My ass, you are a liberal of the Nth degree.

You're pissed because I just showed that you agree with limiting the 2nd so that your arab neighbor can't own a nuke, or some other very nasty stuff, like chemical weapons, which the US government has themselves. So everyone is ok with a list of banned weapons for civilians, we're simply arguing over how long the list will be.

Chemical or Biological are notoriously unreliable weapons and are as likely to kill your own people as they are the targets.

So do I have a 2nd A right to own one or not?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not nukes maybe, but tanks and cannons and shit--he's right, apparently. At least when I asked Google the question a lot of sites said yes.

Can you imagine all the crazies sitting in the bushes near an airport with their AA shoulder fired missiles? lol. People planting mines in parks... Shooting off cruise missiles from the back of their pick-up? ...

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

I'm stating the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain these weapons platform. I know of no 2nd Amendment supporter who could afford the cost. Using a SAM or Nuke as a point in the 2nd Amendment debate is fucking stupid.

It's not about cost though, is it, it's about my 2nd A right to legally possess one if I want to. Do you agree that I should be able to have one or... ten?

go ahead if you can afford the taxes and the cost and the fines for all the EPA regulations you will undoubtedly break and the law suits from your neighbors when you burn down their homes when you fire a missile and as long as you are willing to do the jail time for the property you will surely damage when you use them go right the fuck ahead

But I'm not worried about it because I'm sure the 200 dollar tax for just one grenade is too expensive for you so you won't be able to afford the actual grenade

 

[Skull Pilot]

more of an editorial on society than guns.

No matter how you slice it a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who can legally get a gun will kill with it.

Mass shootings while great press for liberal control efforts account for only about 1% of all murders

The vast majority of murders, 68%,occur in very small areas in 5 % of all the counties in the country and since those areas tend to historically urban and plagued by crime. We don't care about the murders that occur in them because they are mostly urban youths killing other urban youths.

it's not that people do not care, but it is the reason why any mass shootings in the counties and areas not plagued with gun crimes, stands out and people go bonkers over it....imo.

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

No it's not

Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws and hasn't dropped to a level lower than they were before all their gun laws were passed

So how do you explain that one?

Only a simpleton thinks guns are the only variable in the differing murder rates

I said "gun murder rate". Please pay attention.

Meaningless statistic.

So you're saying the gun murder rate went down but the overall murder rate went UP after the UK passed its strict gun laws; do you have the numbers to prove it?

And why is getting murdered by a gun worse than getting murdered by a knife, a bat or a person's fists?

 

[Taz]

Can you imagine all the crazies sitting in the bushes near an airport with their AA shoulder fired missiles? lol. People planting mines in parks... Shooting off cruise missiles from the back of their pick-up? ...

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

I'm stating the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain these weapons platform. I know of no 2nd Amendment supporter who could afford the cost. Using a SAM or Nuke as a point in the 2nd Amendment debate is fucking stupid.

It's not about cost though, is it, it's about my 2nd A right to legally possess one if I want to. Do you agree that I should be able to have one or... ten?

go ahead if you can afford the taxes and the cost and the fines for all the EPA regulations you will undoubtedly break and the law suits from your neighbors when you burn down their homes when you fire a missile and as long as you are willing to do the jail time for the property you will surely damage when you use them go right the fuck ahead

But I'm not worried about it because I'm sure the 200 dollar tax for just one grenade is too expensive for you so you won't be able to afford the actual grenade

Unfortunately, it's illegal to sell or buy nukes in the US, or bring them in, which seems to be an infringement against the 2nd Amendment. Are you ok with that? I am.

 

[Taz]

it's not that people do not care, but it is the reason why any mass shootings in the counties and areas not plagued with gun crimes, stands out and people go bonkers over it....imo.

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

No it's not

Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws and hasn't dropped to a level lower than they were before all their gun laws were passed

So how do you explain that one?

Only a simpleton thinks guns are the only variable in the differing murder rates

I said "gun murder rate". Please pay attention.

Meaningless statistic.

So you're saying the gun murder rate went down but the overall murder rate went UP after the UK passed its strict gun laws; do you have the numbers to prove it?

And why is getting murdered by a gun worse than getting murdered by a knife, a bat or a person's fists?

I would say that the shooter in Vegas from the window and the kid in Florida at the school would have killed way less people if all they had was "a knife, a bat or a person's fists". Amirite or AMIRITE!!

 

[hunarcy]

Actually, where I live, I NEED a car. No public transport... in my small town. You keep failing badly, please try again soon.

Why don't you just walk or ride a bicycle? A small town, you waste money just to putz around. Why do you want to infringe on my right to CHOOSE, what I want to purchase or not. You sure don't act like a libertarian but more like a Fascist..

You're right to choose what you want has already been infringed, as you can't buy an AA missile or a nuke or a cluster bomb or a mine or... So spare me the fake outrage.

And the liberals say i am extreme. I talk about a hunting rifle, and you a flaming liberal talk about nukes and missiles. You are the one showing indignation for people buying what they want to. You are the one who wants to take their right away. Libertarian? My ass, you are a liberal of the Nth degree.

You're arguing with a racist troll who isn't worth reading. He's always trying to play up the "arab terrorist" angle because he's so full of hate.

It's an EXAMPLE, you fucking doofus. And I never said "arab terrorist" I said "Arab-American". You stand corrected.

Just because you avoided the term "arab terrorist" doesn't mean it's not obvious it's what you mean! You never use any other ethnic group for your bombing example. You're a racist and you're throwing profanity because you hate it that I noticed your bigoted example show you for what you truly are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cruise Missiles cost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 each. Stingers cost 38,000 each. Keep in mind that there are also delivery systems involved with each of these weapons that are not cheap either. These platforms are not something your everyday terrorist can afford

"Do you want people to be able to own a nuke" ? is the most retarded response in the entire history of the gun control debate.

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

I'm stating the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain these weapons platform. I know of no 2nd Amendment supporter who could afford the cost. Using a SAM or Nuke as a point in the 2nd Amendment debate is fucking stupid.

It's not about cost though, is it, it's about my 2nd A right to legally possess one if I want to. Do you agree that I should be able to have one or... ten?

go ahead if you can afford the taxes and the cost and the fines for all the EPA regulations you will undoubtedly break and the law suits from your neighbors when you burn down their homes when you fire a missile and as long as you are willing to do the jail time for the property you will surely damage when you use them go right the fuck ahead

But I'm not worried about it because I'm sure the 200 dollar tax for just one grenade is too expensive for you so you won't be able to afford the actual grenade

Unfortunately, it's illegal to sell or buy nukes in the US, or bring them in, which seems to be an infringement against the 2nd Amendment. Are you ok with that? I am.

it's illegal to sell fissionable material

but if you want you can apply for all the licensing from the nuclear regulatory agency buy land mine uranium build nuclear laboratories to spec and buy or build multi million dollar centrifuges and so you can do it all yourself all while following every law in the book in regards to the handling, shipping and processing of nuclear material

Have at it

 

[Taz]

Why don't you just walk or ride a bicycle? A small town, you waste money just to putz around. Why do you want to infringe on my right to CHOOSE, what I want to purchase or not. You sure don't act like a libertarian but more like a Fascist..

You're right to choose what you want has already been infringed, as you can't buy an AA missile or a nuke or a cluster bomb or a mine or... So spare me the fake outrage.

And the liberals say i am extreme. I talk about a hunting rifle, and you a flaming liberal talk about nukes and missiles. You are the one showing indignation for people buying what they want to. You are the one who wants to take their right away. Libertarian? My ass, you are a liberal of the Nth degree.

You're arguing with a racist troll who isn't worth reading. He's always trying to play up the "arab terrorist" angle because he's so full of hate.

It's an EXAMPLE, you fucking doofus. And I never said "arab terrorist" I said "Arab-American". You stand corrected.

Just because you avoided the term "arab terrorist" doesn't mean it's not obvious it's what you mean! You never use any other ethnic group for your bombing example. You're a racist and you're throwing profanity because you hate it that I noticed your bigoted example show you for what you truly are.

I used the Arab-Americans as an example, but please, keep trying to change the subject, since it's apparent that you have no proper comeback to debate with.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I disagree.

No one who whines about our murder rate being higher than other countries ever mentions the facts I have given. All they care about is gun control gun bans and the restriction of rights of people who have committed no crimes.

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

No it's not

Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws and hasn't dropped to a level lower than they were before all their gun laws were passed

So how do you explain that one?

Only a simpleton thinks guns are the only variable in the differing murder rates

I said "gun murder rate". Please pay attention.

Meaningless statistic.

So you're saying the gun murder rate went down but the overall murder rate went UP after the UK passed its strict gun laws; do you have the numbers to prove it?

And why is getting murdered by a gun worse than getting murdered by a knife, a bat or a person's fists?

I would say that the shooter in Vegas from the window and the kid in Florida at the school would have killed way less people if all they had was "a knife, a bat or a person's fists". Amirite or AMIRITE!!

Maybe maybe not

But I'm sure I could have killed as many with a big ass truck and snow plow

and where are your numbers that prove gun murders went down in the UK while the overall murder rate rose?

 

[Taz]

Owning a nuke goes to the core of the 2nd argument because if I can't legally own one in the US then my 2nd rights have been infringed. That you agree that nukes should not be sold shows that you yourself agree on some limits to the 2nd Amendment. Just like everyone else does. So the question isn't "are my 2nd rights being infringed by gun control?" but rather "how long is the list of banned weapons that you agree with and what is your objection to making it a bit longer?"

I'm stating the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain these weapons platform. I know of no 2nd Amendment supporter who could afford the cost. Using a SAM or Nuke as a point in the 2nd Amendment debate is fucking stupid.

It's not about cost though, is it, it's about my 2nd A right to legally possess one if I want to. Do you agree that I should be able to have one or... ten?

go ahead if you can afford the taxes and the cost and the fines for all the EPA regulations you will undoubtedly break and the law suits from your neighbors when you burn down their homes when you fire a missile and as long as you are willing to do the jail time for the property you will surely damage when you use them go right the fuck ahead

But I'm not worried about it because I'm sure the 200 dollar tax for just one grenade is too expensive for you so you won't be able to afford the actual grenade

Unfortunately, it's illegal to sell or buy nukes in the US, or bring them in, which seems to be an infringement against the 2nd Amendment. Are you ok with that? I am.

it's illegal to sell fissionable material

but if you want you can apply for all the licensing from the nuclear regulatory agency buy land mine uranium build nuclear laboratories to spec and buy or build multi million dollar centrifuges and so you can do it all yourself all while following every law in the book in regards to the handling, shipping and processing of nuclear material

Have at it

That's just one example that you're ok with banning. There are plenty more bunker busters, AA missles, ... that citizens aren't allowed to own. The list is probably pretty long, and we're all ok with that. I was just pointing that you yourself, in these instances, are ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm stating the ridiculous amount of money it takes to maintain these weapons platform. I know of no 2nd Amendment supporter who could afford the cost. Using a SAM or Nuke as a point in the 2nd Amendment debate is fucking stupid.

It's not about cost though, is it, it's about my 2nd A right to legally possess one if I want to. Do you agree that I should be able to have one or... ten?

go ahead if you can afford the taxes and the cost and the fines for all the EPA regulations you will undoubtedly break and the law suits from your neighbors when you burn down their homes when you fire a missile and as long as you are willing to do the jail time for the property you will surely damage when you use them go right the fuck ahead

But I'm not worried about it because I'm sure the 200 dollar tax for just one grenade is too expensive for you so you won't be able to afford the actual grenade

Unfortunately, it's illegal to sell or buy nukes in the US, or bring them in, which seems to be an infringement against the 2nd Amendment. Are you ok with that? I am.

it's illegal to sell fissionable material

but if you want you can apply for all the licensing from the nuclear regulatory agency buy land mine uranium build nuclear laboratories to spec and buy or build multi million dollar centrifuges and so you can do it all yourself all while following every law in the book in regards to the handling, shipping and processing of nuclear material

Have at it

That's just one example that you're ok with banning. There are plenty more bunker busters, AA missles, ... that citizens aren't allowed to own. The list is probably pretty long, and we're all ok with that. I was just pointing that you yourself, in these instances, are ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment.

Are you unable to read.

I told you how you can build your own nuke

Go ahead I don;t care.

You'll die from radiation poisoning outside of a week but please go ahead.

 

[Taz]

Because gun control is what the other countries are doing to get their lower gun murder rates. Pretty simple concept really.

No it's not

Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws and hasn't dropped to a level lower than they were before all their gun laws were passed

So how do you explain that one?

Only a simpleton thinks guns are the only variable in the differing murder rates

I said "gun murder rate". Please pay attention.

Meaningless statistic.

So you're saying the gun murder rate went down but the overall murder rate went UP after the UK passed its strict gun laws; do you have the numbers to prove it?

And why is getting murdered by a gun worse than getting murdered by a knife, a bat or a person's fists?

I would say that the shooter in Vegas from the window and the kid in Florida at the school would have killed way less people if all they had was "a knife, a bat or a person's fists". Amirite or AMIRITE!!

Maybe maybe not

But I'm sure I could have killed as many with a big ass truck and snow plow

and where are your numbers that prove gun murders went down in the UK while the overall murder rate rose?

It was you who said "Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws". I never mentioned the UK. But even so, the murder rate in the UK was much lower than in the US because of gun control. That it may have gone up some still keeps it way, way below the US rate. So it's kind of a red herring to say shit like that.

 

[Taz]

It's not about cost though, is it, it's about my 2nd A right to legally possess one if I want to. Do you agree that I should be able to have one or... ten?

go ahead if you can afford the taxes and the cost and the fines for all the EPA regulations you will undoubtedly break and the law suits from your neighbors when you burn down their homes when you fire a missile and as long as you are willing to do the jail time for the property you will surely damage when you use them go right the fuck ahead

But I'm not worried about it because I'm sure the 200 dollar tax for just one grenade is too expensive for you so you won't be able to afford the actual grenade

Unfortunately, it's illegal to sell or buy nukes in the US, or bring them in, which seems to be an infringement against the 2nd Amendment. Are you ok with that? I am.

it's illegal to sell fissionable material

but if you want you can apply for all the licensing from the nuclear regulatory agency buy land mine uranium build nuclear laboratories to spec and buy or build multi million dollar centrifuges and so you can do it all yourself all while following every law in the book in regards to the handling, shipping and processing of nuclear material

Have at it

That's just one example that you're ok with banning. There are plenty more bunker busters, AA missles, ... that citizens aren't allowed to own. The list is probably pretty long, and we're all ok with that. I was just pointing that you yourself, in these instances, are ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment.

Are you unable to read.

I told you how you can build your own nuke

Go ahead I don;t care.

You'll die from radiation poisoning outside of a week but please go ahead.

So if I put an ad in the NY Times asking to buy a nuke, what do you think will happen? Do you think that I'll end up in jail for 50 years when the government stings me?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it's not

Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws and hasn't dropped to a level lower than they were before all their gun laws were passed

So how do you explain that one?

Only a simpleton thinks guns are the only variable in the differing murder rates

I said "gun murder rate". Please pay attention.

Meaningless statistic.

So you're saying the gun murder rate went down but the overall murder rate went UP after the UK passed its strict gun laws; do you have the numbers to prove it?

And why is getting murdered by a gun worse than getting murdered by a knife, a bat or a person's fists?

I would say that the shooter in Vegas from the window and the kid in Florida at the school would have killed way less people if all they had was "a knife, a bat or a person's fists". Amirite or AMIRITE!!

Maybe maybe not

But I'm sure I could have killed as many with a big ass truck and snow plow

and where are your numbers that prove gun murders went down in the UK while the overall murder rate rose?

It was you who said "Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws". I never mentioned the UK. But even so, the murder rate in the UK was much lower than in the US because of gun control. That it may have gone up some still keeps it way, way below the US rate. So it's kind of a red herring to say shit like that.

They did

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[Skull Pilot]

go ahead if you can afford the taxes and the cost and the fines for all the EPA regulations you will undoubtedly break and the law suits from your neighbors when you burn down their homes when you fire a missile and as long as you are willing to do the jail time for the property you will surely damage when you use them go right the fuck ahead

But I'm not worried about it because I'm sure the 200 dollar tax for just one grenade is too expensive for you so you won't be able to afford the actual grenade

Unfortunately, it's illegal to sell or buy nukes in the US, or bring them in, which seems to be an infringement against the 2nd Amendment. Are you ok with that? I am.

it's illegal to sell fissionable material

but if you want you can apply for all the licensing from the nuclear regulatory agency buy land mine uranium build nuclear laboratories to spec and buy or build multi million dollar centrifuges and so you can do it all yourself all while following every law in the book in regards to the handling, shipping and processing of nuclear material

Have at it

That's just one example that you're ok with banning. There are plenty more bunker busters, AA missles, ... that citizens aren't allowed to own. The list is probably pretty long, and we're all ok with that. I was just pointing that you yourself, in these instances, are ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment.

Are you unable to read.

I told you how you can build your own nuke

Go ahead I don;t care.

You'll die from radiation poisoning outside of a week but please go ahead.

So if I put an ad in the NY Times asking to buy a nuke, what do you think will happen? Do you think that I'll end up in jail for 50 years when the government stings me?

Don't know don't care.

I have no desire to own a nuke you do,

Here is an article on how to build one and it has pictures to make it easier for you to understand.

Build an Atomic Bomb!

 

[Taz]

I said "gun murder rate". Please pay attention.

Meaningless statistic.

So you're saying the gun murder rate went down but the overall murder rate went UP after the UK passed its strict gun laws; do you have the numbers to prove it?

And why is getting murdered by a gun worse than getting murdered by a knife, a bat or a person's fists?

I would say that the shooter in Vegas from the window and the kid in Florida at the school would have killed way less people if all they had was "a knife, a bat or a person's fists". Amirite or AMIRITE!!

Maybe maybe not

But I'm sure I could have killed as many with a big ass truck and snow plow

and where are your numbers that prove gun murders went down in the UK while the overall murder rate rose?

It was you who said "Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws". I never mentioned the UK. But even so, the murder rate in the UK was much lower than in the US because of gun control. That it may have gone up some still keeps it way, way below the US rate. So it's kind of a red herring to say shit like that.

They did

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

A short spike and then it went down. Probably was about to head up anyways, so the ban made it go down afterwards. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Taz]

Unfortunately, it's illegal to sell or buy nukes in the US, or bring them in, which seems to be an infringement against the 2nd Amendment. Are you ok with that? I am.

it's illegal to sell fissionable material

but if you want you can apply for all the licensing from the nuclear regulatory agency buy land mine uranium build nuclear laboratories to spec and buy or build multi million dollar centrifuges and so you can do it all yourself all while following every law in the book in regards to the handling, shipping and processing of nuclear material

Have at it

That's just one example that you're ok with banning. There are plenty more bunker busters, AA missles, ... that citizens aren't allowed to own. The list is probably pretty long, and we're all ok with that. I was just pointing that you yourself, in these instances, are ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment.

Are you unable to read.

I told you how you can build your own nuke

Go ahead I don;t care.

You'll die from radiation poisoning outside of a week but please go ahead.

So if I put an ad in the NY Times asking to buy a nuke, what do you think will happen? Do you think that I'll end up in jail for 50 years when the government stings me?

Don't know don't care.

I have no desire to own a nuke you do,

Here is an article on how to build one and it has pictures to make it easier for you to understand.

Build an Atomic Bomb!

"Don't know don't care." Awww, Admitting you don't know something, how cute.

Well, consider yourself schooled then. You've learned something new today.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Meaningless statistic.

So you're saying the gun murder rate went down but the overall murder rate went UP after the UK passed its strict gun laws; do you have the numbers to prove it?

And why is getting murdered by a gun worse than getting murdered by a knife, a bat or a person's fists?

I would say that the shooter in Vegas from the window and the kid in Florida at the school would have killed way less people if all they had was "a knife, a bat or a person's fists". Amirite or AMIRITE!!

Maybe maybe not

But I'm sure I could have killed as many with a big ass truck and snow plow

and where are your numbers that prove gun murders went down in the UK while the overall murder rate rose?

It was you who said "Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws". I never mentioned the UK. But even so, the murder rate in the UK was much lower than in the US because of gun control. That it may have gone up some still keeps it way, way below the US rate. So it's kind of a red herring to say shit like that.

They did

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

A short spike and then it went down. Probably was about to head up anyways, so the ban made it go down afterwards. Thanks for clearing that up.

it never went below the lowest lever before the ban did it?

No it didn't

if gun bans lower the murder rate shouldn't the murder rate after the ban drop to a level lower than it was before the ban?

Yes it should

did it

no it didn't

do gun bans lower the murder rate

no they don't

 

[Skull Pilot]

it's illegal to sell fissionable material

but if you want you can apply for all the licensing from the nuclear regulatory agency buy land mine uranium build nuclear laboratories to spec and buy or build multi million dollar centrifuges and so you can do it all yourself all while following every law in the book in regards to the handling, shipping and processing of nuclear material

Have at it

That's just one example that you're ok with banning. There are plenty more bunker busters, AA missles, ... that citizens aren't allowed to own. The list is probably pretty long, and we're all ok with that. I was just pointing that you yourself, in these instances, are ok with limiting the 2nd Amendment.

Are you unable to read.

I told you how you can build your own nuke

Go ahead I don;t care.

You'll die from radiation poisoning outside of a week but please go ahead.

So if I put an ad in the NY Times asking to buy a nuke, what do you think will happen? Do you think that I'll end up in jail for 50 years when the government stings me?

Don't know don't care.

I have no desire to own a nuke you do,

Here is an article on how to build one and it has pictures to make it easier for you to understand.

Build an Atomic Bomb!

"Don't know don't care." Awww, Admitting you don't know something, how cute.

Well, consider yourself schooled then. You've learned something new today.

If you want to find out go ahead and do it.

And how the fuck am I supposed to know what will happen if you do something?

but you can purchase uranium ore and you can make your own weapons grade nuclear material. All the info you need is out there so go ahead and do it

 

[Taz]

I would say that the shooter in Vegas from the window and the kid in Florida at the school would have killed way less people if all they had was "a knife, a bat or a person's fists". Amirite or AMIRITE!!

Maybe maybe not

But I'm sure I could have killed as many with a big ass truck and snow plow

and where are your numbers that prove gun murders went down in the UK while the overall murder rate rose?

It was you who said "Murder rates increased in the UK AFTER they passed their strict gun laws". I never mentioned the UK. But even so, the murder rate in the UK was much lower than in the US because of gun control. That it may have gone up some still keeps it way, way below the US rate. So it's kind of a red herring to say shit like that.

They did

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

A short spike and then it went down. Probably was about to head up anyways, so the ban made it go down afterwards. Thanks for clearing that up.

it never went below the lowest lever before the ban did it?

No it didn't

if gun bans lower the murder rate shouldn't the murder rate after the ban drop to a level lower than it was before the ban?

Yes it should

did it

no it didn't

do gun bans lower the murder rate

no they don't

Gun control laws help keep the rate low in the first place.

UK on left, US on right