Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Ray From Cleveland]

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

That's due to culture and not the "tool".

 

[there4eyeM]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Just look at Kent State.

 

[Jack4jill]

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell the guns off to the armies of the world.

 

[ChrisL]

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

Good Lord, you are nuttier than squirrel poop. Lol. You are not from this country are you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And how do you propose doing that?

Banning most guns, of course.

That is going to move them underground. How'd that work with drugs or alcohol?

Going underground would be just fine. We have lots of prisons.

This doesn't even make sense. For one thing, if you push guns into the illegal market, they would be twice as difficult to trace. There would be no "background checks" or other such measures. Your argument is weak sauce.

Anyone found with a gun and not allowed to would go break rocks for ten years. They'll get the message in no time.

You mean like they do now? You are aware of course that your liberal judges do NOT in fact send criminals to jail for long over firearms possession?

 

[ChrisL]

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

Seriously, you need to work on your arguments as well as your piss poor presentation.

 

[Jack4jill]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

That's due to culture and not the "tool".

That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush. You can have peace with or without guns. That is what scares your ilk.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

Really? What country do you live in?

Country? How about year? I live in 2016, not 1816.

Yes, 2016, and in 2016, many Americans are armed and more interest in carrying firearms; particularly women.

 

[there4eyeM]

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.

What were all those 'arms' negotiations between the S.U. and the U.S. involving nuclear (or is that nucular?) arms?
And weren't we told America needed 'the bomb' for defense? Was it really always for offense, as the S.U. maintained?

 

[ChrisL]

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.

What were all those 'arms' negotiations between the S.U. and the U.S. involving nuclear (or is that nucular?) arms?
And weren't we told America needed 'the bomb' for defense? Was it really always for offense, as the S.U. maintained?

This thread is about guns and weapons that citizens are "allowed" to own. Keep on topic.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

That's due to culture and not the "tool".

That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush. You can have peace with or without guns. That is what scares your ilk.

Iraq has never been peaceful. Not for thousands of years. It was, at best, "controlled" by a ruthless murderous and insane dictatorial regime.

 

[P@triot]

But there is no “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

So show us the restriction in the U.S. Constitution... You can't. So shut up. You don't get to break the law just because you are scared of inanimate objects.

 

[Jack4jill]

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

Seriously, you need to work on your arguments as well as your piss poor presentation.

Your argument boils down to, I like guns, they make my pansy ass feel safe.

 

[there4eyeM]

Arms are arms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your constant resorting to name-calling just reveals what kind of a lowly person you really are.

Do you live in the United States?

Dummy is not a name in this case. It is your mental ability, a highly limited one.

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

I guess the police don't need weapons anymore then. They can just karate chop the bad guys. Lol.

Non-leathal weapons exist. They work.

Great. If you ever come across three or four guys ready to beat you up and take your money, throw rocks at them.

 

[ChrisL]

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

Seriously, you need to work on your arguments as well as your piss poor presentation.

Your argument boils down to, I like guns, they make my pansy ass feel safe.

My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios. You don't even HAVE an argument. It is weak sauce, like you. Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one. You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them. They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not. That is how it goes in OUR country.

 

[P@triot]

Country? How about year? I live in 2016, not 1816.

Yeah...I also live in 2016, not 1816, so you need to shut the hell up right now. After all, the Constitution never granted you 1st Amendment rights over the internet.

 

[Jack4jill]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

That's due to culture and not the "tool".

That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush. You can have peace with or without guns. That is what scares your ilk.

Iraq has never been peaceful. Not for thousands of years. It was, at best, "controlled" by a ruthless murderous and insane dictatorial regime.

Iraq under a dictator was very peaceful. Dictatorships usually are.

 

[ChrisL]

Arms are arms.

You are building a strawman argument. Stick with the topic of the thread, which is not "bombs."