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.
So you're going to ignore all those lethal fist fights on school yards? How irresponsible!Perhaps we should put guns into the hands of kids on the playground. That would be safer than those fist fights. Bloody torsos are preferable to bloody lips.You're right. Sometimes the bullet just lodges in someone's spine turning what could have been a really ugly scene into a fairy tale ending. Sometimes the bullet just passes through the liver, and who could say no to a liver transplant, especially when you consider how deadly those fists are. Sometimes the bullet fails to impart a deadly infection, unlike a slug from a fist.No because not everyone who gets shot dies.
As I said more people are killed with knives than rifles
more people are killed with fists than rifles
No. Not everyone who gets shot dies. But a slug in the jaw during a bar fight can kill.
Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill
The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban
Now you're just being stupid. I don't know if it's intentional or not.
Guns are for adults and the only time anyone under the age of 18 should use a gun is under direct adult supervision
And last week two kids were killed during a drive by in Wilkinsburg, PA. I guess they were lucky they weren't involved in a drive by fist fight.So you're going to ignore all those lethal fist fights on school yards? How irresponsible!Perhaps we should put guns into the hands of kids on the playground. That would be safer than those fist fights. Bloody torsos are preferable to bloody lips.You're right. Sometimes the bullet just lodges in someone's spine turning what could have been a really ugly scene into a fairy tale ending. Sometimes the bullet just passes through the liver, and who could say no to a liver transplant, especially when you consider how deadly those fists are. Sometimes the bullet fails to impart a deadly infection, unlike a slug from a fist.
No. Not everyone who gets shot dies. But a slug in the jaw during a bar fight can kill.
Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill
The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban
Now you're just being stupid. I don't know if it's intentional or not.
Guns are for adults and the only time anyone under the age of 18 should use a gun is under direct adult supervision
When I was in HS a kid was killed in a fist fight so denying it can happen is naive to the point of brain damage.
Are you denying that more people are killed by fists every year than by the semiauto rifles you want to ban?
The numbers prove out just look at the FBI tables on murder
And last week two kids were killed during a drive by in Wilkinsburg, PA. I guess they were lucky they weren't involved in a drive by fist fight.So you're going to ignore all those lethal fist fights on school yards? How irresponsible!Perhaps we should put guns into the hands of kids on the playground. That would be safer than those fist fights. Bloody torsos are preferable to bloody lips.Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill
The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban
Now you're just being stupid. I don't know if it's intentional or not.
Guns are for adults and the only time anyone under the age of 18 should use a gun is under direct adult supervision
When I was in HS a kid was killed in a fist fight so denying it can happen is naive to the point of brain damage.
Are you denying that more people are killed by fists every year than by the semiauto rifles you want to ban?
The numbers prove out just look at the FBI tables on murder
Tell that to the hunters in the parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio I live in and around.See my earlier post on destructive devices such as bombs, sawed off shotguns, machine guns, and submachine guns.Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?
There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?
This is going to become the next definitional issue.
Gun ownership is 99% about self defense and only 1% about "sport".
And last week two kids were killed during a drive by in Wilkinsburg, PA. I guess they were lucky they weren't involved in a drive by fist fight.So you're going to ignore all those lethal fist fights on school yards? How irresponsible!Perhaps we should put guns into the hands of kids on the playground. That would be safer than those fist fights. Bloody torsos are preferable to bloody lips.Yes a slug to the jaw can kill.
Falling and cracking your skull can kill
The fact is that fists are deadlier than the semiauto rifles you want to ban
Now you're just being stupid. I don't know if it's intentional or not.
Guns are for adults and the only time anyone under the age of 18 should use a gun is under direct adult supervision
When I was in HS a kid was killed in a fist fight so denying it can happen is naive to the point of brain damage.
Are you denying that more people are killed by fists every year than by the semiauto rifles you want to ban?
The numbers prove out just look at the FBI tables on murder
Oh! Happy day! I guess those claims of absolutely NEEDING a gun for self defense are way over blown then! We're a safe, secure nation because there is no gun violence to speak of, aside from where those pesky Democrats hold seats on city council and the mayor's office. No gun violence so long as Republicans are in charge of cities, towns and villages.All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?So what?
Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?
So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?
What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?
Need I go on?
If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.
There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?
I don't know the particular laws on the possession of TNT.
There are dangers involved with knives too. In fact knives are used to kill more people than rifles of all kinds including the semiautos you want to ban.
No gun in the hands of a law abiding person is a threat to anyone. SO there is no need to tell any law abiding person he can't own certain firearms
Yes....I would deny it....357,000,000 guns in private hands......8,124 gun murders 90% of which are committed by people who already are legally barred from owning guns who have already been arrested for violent crimes and most for gun crimes....and they are back on the street...
200 million guns in private hands in thje 1990s......357 million guns in private hands in 2016....and our gun murder rate dropped 49%......
Think of the numbers....
357,000,000 v. 8,124..........
not even close to being a problem with 320,000,000 people in the country.....and almost all of the crime is confined to tiny geographic areas in our democrat controlled inner cities....
We don't have a gun problem...we have a criminal sentencing problem...the 2 guys who murdered Dwayne Wade's cousin....are both multiple felons and felons for gun charges who were both on parole..with ankel monitors when they killed her.......
had we focused on the criminals, and not law abiding gun owners...those guys would have been in jail for 30 years and that woman would be alive....
Licensing gun owners would not have stopped her murder.....they couldn't get a license
registering guns would not have stopped her murder....as felons they do not have to register illegal guns per the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision....
universal background checks would not have stopped her murder......they would or did use a straw buyer or stole their guns.....
France has every single gun law you want...they cannot own semi auto pistols or rifles or revovlers.....yet their criminals get fully automatic weapons easily...as do terrorists on government, terrorist watch lists.....
Nothing you say about guns is true or accurate...
Where's your rocket propelled grenade launcher? Is it hard to find fuel for your flamethrower?Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants
No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.
What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down
After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?
Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists
We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.
So what?
Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?
So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?
What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?
Need I go on?
If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.
There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?
If a gun has a design flaw, the way the pinto did....you can have it recalled...and if someone is hurt due to a design flaw you can sue the gun maker....so we already have what you want.
All guns have been used for war....lever action rifles were used in war before magazine fed rifles were...revolvers were used for war before semi auto pistols were made....and medics in Vietnam often carried shot guns as their main weapon.......
So if we let you morons declare weapons of war off limits...you can declare all firearms off limits.....
Jobs. A better way of life than Thug Life.If you have a better way to "fix" the extraordinary number of shootings in the inner cities than limit their access to illegal weapons, I'd like to know it.
Typical LW partisan. Would you deny there is a problem with violence in America? Why do you focus only upon "gun" violence? Because it's just as big a LW meme as gay marriage and abortion are for your equally fanatic counterparts?All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.
Is the rifle pictured below a ""weapon designed for a battlefield? Under the Democrat's 2013 anti-gun bill it would be banned. Do you agree it should be banned?You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield....
Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.
To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)
Please begin
2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.
3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.
4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.
Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?
There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants
No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.
What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down
After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?
Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists
We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.
So what?
Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?
So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?
What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?
Need I go on?
If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.
A freezer full of venison is a grand thing. But while you're hunting, it's sport, right?Tell that to the hunters in the parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio I live in and around.See my earlier post on destructive devices such as bombs, sawed off shotguns, machine guns, and submachine guns.Could I walk around downtown wearing a suit made of dynamite and still be law abiding? So long as I don't light the fuse, it's my right to do so, right?
There are dangers involved with deadly weapons. If we can ban the Ford Pinto due to safety concerns, why not weapons designed for war, not sport?
This is going to become the next definitional issue.
Gun ownership is 99% about self defense and only 1% about "sport".
I hunt. Are you saying that the only reason I do it is sport?
Gun violence ends lives.Typical LW partisan. Would you deny there is a problem with violence in America? Why do you focus only upon "gun" violence? Because it's just as big a LW meme as gay marriage and abortion are for your equally fanatic counterparts?All the guns flooding the streets are not just benign tools in the hands of the law abiding. Would you deny there is a problem with gun violence in America? And, again, all shooters are law abiding until they aren't.
For the magazine, yes.Is the rifle pictured below a ""weapon designed for a battlefield? Under the Democrat's 2013 anti-gun bill it would be banned. Do you agree it should be banned?You are not living in a war zone. You are not living in a post-apocalyptic zombie infested fantasy. You do not absolutely need a weapon designed for a battlefield....
View attachment 87628
Ah! A stab at wit!Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.1. The ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and possession of weapons with a semi-automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a magazine containing greater than ten rounds.For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.
To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)
Please begin
2. Drive by shootings, mass shootings. At least let's lower the body count.
3. Criminals are not going to mass produce their own arsenal of such weaponry. Criminals are not going to convert other weapons to serve their purpose. Gang shootings, inner city shootings particularly will be reduced.
4. Your right to bear arms would not be infringed. You can still own all the bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers you want. You can still bear arms.
Now, I know that gun lovers will disagree. But what gun lover actually needs a semi-automatic weapon?
There is no reason any law abiding person cannot have a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's
There is no reason a law abiding citizen cannot have any capacity magazine he wants
No law abiding person is responsible for the criminal acts of another person.
What if I told you that all drivers had to pay to install a breathalyzer ignition lockout on every car they own and they have to blow into it every 15 minutes or the car will shut down
After all that would eliminate drunk driving wouldn't it?
Or maybe all men need to be chemically castrated because some men are rapists
We do not hold law abiding people responsible for the criminal acts of others.
So what?
Do we just treat everyone like a criminal because after all no one is a criminal until they are, right?
So why don't we have you chemically castrated because every man is not a rapist until he is?
What about we just revoke your drivers licence because you're not a drunk driver until you are?
Need I go on?
If anyone breaks the law THEN you restrict and /or revoke his rights.
Point of order;
Nosmo kunt has no balls.
Just sayin'
Every Democrat is law abiding, until they aren't.Every shooter is law abiding, until they aren't.
Dodge. Is the weapon pictured designed for the battlefield, yes or no?For the magazine, yes.Is the rifle pictured below a ""weapon designed for a battlefield? Under the Democrat's 2013 anti-gun bill it would be banned. Do you agree it should be banned?
View attachment 87628
Now you're just being stupid. I don't know if it's intentional or not.
Guns are for adults and the only time anyone under the age of 18 should use a gun is under direct adult supervision
Gang violence ends lives. Automobiles end lives. Cancer from artificial ingredients ends lives. What are the top 3 killers of Americans and why don't you give a shit about them?Gun violence ends lives.
It's difficult, from the photograph, to determine the firing system of that weapon.Dodge. Is the weapon pictured designed for the battlefield, yes or no?For the magazine, yes.Is the rifle pictured below a ""weapon designed for a battlefield? Under the Democrat's 2013 anti-gun bill it would be banned. Do you agree it should be banned?
View attachment 87628
