Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

[Flash]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

Well regulated meant well provisioned and the militia is all the people you fucking moron. Justice Scalia explained all that in the Heller case. Only you stupid Moon Bats are in denial that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Stupidity like that is one of the reasons we ridicule you dumbasses so much.

No. Well regulated does not mean provisioned

Our founders knew what a militia was and without a standing army depended on them for our nations defense

Their militia was not a bunch of random people carrying guns. It was organized, trained, had a command structure

You are confused Moon Bat.

Sorry, but well regulated does mean well provisioned. The militia is everybody. Justice Scalia put that puppy to bed by very forcefully stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That is settled case law in the US.

You can go into your typical uneducated Libtard denial all you want but it just makes you look like a fool..

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[TNHarley]

Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.

Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well. Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership. I have never owned a gun and have never, even at my most vulnerable and about to get gang raped moment, did it ever occur to me to want one. I have certainly never defended myself with one or had one pointed at me. The vast majority of the time that "good guys" are confronted with irrational and aggressive individuals, having a gun does not help or it happens too fast to use it, or something.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.

 

[Likkmee]

If they ever quit dicking around and actually hold a Constitutional Convention, the Second Amendment must be made absolute and out of reach of government. That no law abiding citizen can have their right to gun ownership removed without due process and conviction of a felony.

20, 000 bed wetting winps got shot at a couple days ago. 1 asshole had a revolver. What a pathetic bunch. Imagine if 15,000 returned fire on that punks hotel window ! 60,000 plus rounds in 30 seconds ! It would have look like it was hit by an RPG !

So, you would take an underpowered handgun from a thousand yards and attack a single window 32 stories in the air?

Not only would that be ineffective, but criminally reckless. You'd end up killing innocent people in the rooms all around the shooter.

I hope you don't have any weapons if that is all the thought you put into its use.

Ever been hunting? You don't just verify that that the target you're after is not a human, but you also make sure that what is behind the target is safe should you miss.

Wow, just wow.

In murka they call that brush huntin'. BTW. They were staying at a casino. F'em !

 

[Darkwind]

If they ever quit dicking around and actually hold a Constitutional Convention, the Second Amendment must be made absolute and out of reach of government. That no law abiding citizen can have their right to gun ownership removed without due process and conviction of a felony.

20, 000 bed wetting winps got shot at a couple days ago. 1 asshole had a revolver. What a pathetic bunch. Imagine if 15,000 returned fire on that punks hotel window ! 60,000 plus rounds in 30 seconds ! It would have look like it was hit by an RPG !

So, you would take an underpowered handgun from a thousand yards and attack a single window 32 stories in the air?

Not only would that be ineffective, but criminally reckless. You'd end up killing innocent people in the rooms all around the shooter.

I hope you don't have any weapons if that is all the thought you put into its use.

Ever been hunting? You don't just verify that that the target you're after is not a human, but you also make sure that what is behind the target is safe should you miss.

Wow, just wow.

In murka they call that brush huntin'

I see, you think you're insulting Me by being stupid. Trouble is, I don't think it is an act on your part. Shame.

 

[OldLady]

Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.
How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

Have you ever tried carrying a concealed shovel into a restaurant?

LOL
Definitely time for the knife.

Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.

That kind of makes the other tools of dealing death less preferable.

I own a longsword and it can literally take your head off, or rip open your chest cavity. No one would survive a hit from that blade in their head or torso.

But I am not walking around with a longsword hanging from my belt.

As to knives, well there are plenty of criminals who prefer to use them instead of guns and sometimes get nicknames to that effect.

Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.
That kind of makes the other tools of dealing death less preferable.

Exactly. Which is why I so hate fucking guns.

 

[NightFox]

Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.

Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well.

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic? You want to disarm the law abiding citizens with the hope & a prayer that the non law abiding citizens won't be able to arm themselves through the black market? when did anything like that ever happen in the history of mankind? and while you're at it are you going to disarm the greatest purveyor of violence in the history of mankind (aka government) too?

How many times do you have to see government prohibitions in action before you realize they don't automagically change criminals into law abiding, peaceful people, they only make being a criminal more lucrative.

Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership.

Well that answers the question as to which "side" you're on, did you receive your "Screw the individual, I'm a statist!" coffee mug, tote bag and badge in the mail yet?

No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

The only answer to violence is to deal with the root cause, violent individuals and the best place to start reducing that count is with the locale were most of the violent individuals reside, in government, NOT by trampling all over the individual liberty of law abiding, peaceful citizens that are only seeking to protect themselves.

 

[OldLady]

Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.

Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well. Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership. I have never owned a gun and have never, even at my most vulnerable and about to get gang raped moment, did it ever occur to me to want one. I have certainly never defended myself with one or had one pointed at me. The vast majority of the time that "good guys" are confronted with irrational and aggressive individuals, having a gun does not help or it happens too fast to use it, or something.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.

Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

Well regulated meant well provisioned and the militia is all the people you fucking moron. Justice Scalia explained all that in the Heller case. Only you stupid Moon Bats are in denial that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Stupidity like that is one of the reasons we ridicule you dumbasses so much.

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, and must not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

Well regulated meant well provisioned and the militia is all the people you fucking moron. Justice Scalia explained all that in the Heller case. Only you stupid Moon Bats are in denial that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Stupidity like that is one of the reasons we ridicule you dumbasses so much.

No. Well regulated does not mean provisioned

Our founders knew what a militia was and without a standing army depended on them for our nations defense

Their militia was not a bunch of random people carrying guns. It was organized, trained, had a command structure

Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners, and guidons.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.
That kind of makes the other tools of dealing death less preferable.

Exactly. Which is why I so hate fucking guns.

I have served five years in the infantry and lived in the barracks the entire time.

We had a certain amount of order instilled by the USMJ, but the biggest baddest guys still had a lot of 'weight' to throw around. I think you would have hated that environment even more than guns.

IF we did magically get rid of all guns, then we would have a society where those trained to use swords all their lives would have the inherent advantage over everyone else when it came to the use of force. This was the foundational advantage that the nobility of Europe had for centuries and used to keep peasants in their place along with everyone else as well (but 98% of us would have been peasants).

So I love me my guns. They literally give us the ability to secure our freedoms.

 

[dannyboys]

And because nowhere in the constitution does it say that conviction of a felony means you lose you right to bear arms, the day you are released from prison you are given your guns back, preferably cleaned and well oiled and ready for use.

Total bullshit!
Show me someone convicted of a first degree felony involving a firearm who can legally own one when they are released from prison.
YOU CAN"T!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.

Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

Yes, he is a brat and I have him on ignore, but he does have a point, IMO.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually it gives the reason in the amendment "being necessary for the security of a free state"

Very true

We needed well regulated militias to defend our free state
Individual civilians aren't worth shit

Well regulated meant well provisioned and the militia is all the people you fucking moron. Justice Scalia explained all that in the Heller case. Only you stupid Moon Bats are in denial that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Stupidity like that is one of the reasons we ridicule you dumbasses so much.

No. Well regulated does not mean provisioned

Our founders knew what a militia was and without a standing army depended on them for our nations defense

Their militia was not a bunch of random people carrying guns. It was organized, trained, had a command structure

Depends on the individual state; some states considered everybody to be in the 'militia', particularly low population states.

The People are the Militia in the US.

 

[dannyboys]

Point is that guns are designed for convenience, concealment and to poke holes through targets with minimum effort by a person wielding it.
That kind of makes the other tools of dealing death less preferable.

Exactly. Which is why I so hate fucking guns.

I have served five years in the infantry and lived in the barracks the entire time.

We had a certain amount of order instilled by the USMJ, but the biggest baddest guys still had a lot of 'weight' to throw around. I think you would have hated that environment even more than guns.

IF we did magically get rid of all guns, then we would have a society where those trained to use swords all their lives would have the inherent advantage over everyone else when it came to the use of force. This was the foundational advantage that the nobility of Europe had for centuries and used to keep peasants in their place along with everyone else as well (but 98% of us would have been peasants).

So I love me my guns. They literally give us the ability to secure our freedoms.

If the LIB were able to take away everyone's guns and the only other alternative was for people to carry around swords the fucking LIBs would be trying to take away everyone's swords!

 

[Flash]

 

[TNHarley]

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.

Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well. Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership. I have never owned a gun and have never, even at my most vulnerable and about to get gang raped moment, did it ever occur to me to want one. I have certainly never defended myself with one or had one pointed at me. The vast majority of the time that "good guys" are confronted with irrational and aggressive individuals, having a gun does not help or it happens too fast to use it, or something.
No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.

Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

yes, i love freedom so i am a brat. What a stupid, regressive thing to say.
Intent of manufacturing doesnt make something more dangerous.
Did you wake up on the fallacious side of the bed this morning?

 

[TNHarley]

FREEDOM IS PROGRESSIVE
You fake ass hacks!

 

[TNHarley]

LOL jim bowie is such a dumbfuck

 

[OldLady]

Why does the 2nd amendment exist?

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.

Of course the gub'mint worshipers don't care about individual rights and never have, they're just interested in using gun control as a means to further empower the state using ludicrous arguments. Blaming gun ownership for the acts of mass murders is like blaming forks and spoons for the obesity epidemic and suggesting that we further empower the central government to trample all over the rights of individuals while operating under a presumption of guilty until proven innocent is even more ridiculous.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." -- Tucker Blackstone

It should be obvious, primarily to protect (NOT grant) the inherent right of the individual to self defense which is meaningless without the ability to acquire the means to exercise it.
Help me out here. Every time I get into a gun argument, folks on your side are pointing out that knives, fists and feet kill more people than guns. Then there are vehicles, shovels, baseball bats.

"Folks on your side" which "side" would that be? Do you perchance mean the side of the individual and his/her inherent rights? 'cause that's the "side" I'm on, which "side" are you on?

How about using them to defend yourself instead, if they're so damned efficient?

"knives, fists and feet" aren't very efficient at defending oneself from aggressors that have guns and the fact that SOME people utilize guns to commit aggression against others makes it more than reasonable to argue that gun ownership is a necessity to fully exercise ones right to self defense.

Personally I wish firearms didn't exist at all but they do, so in order to defend oneself, gun ownership becomes both a reasonable and justifiable means, because they're are irrational and aggressive individuals (not to mention governments) that will happily use them against you.

The less guns that are in legal circulation, the less will be in circulation illegally as well.

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic? You want to disarm the law abiding citizens with the hope & a prayer that the non law abiding citizens won't be able to arm themselves through the black market? when did anything like that ever happen in the history of mankind? and while you're at it are you going to disarm the greatest purveyor of violence in the history of mankind (aka government) too?

How many times do you have to see government prohibitions in action before you realize they don't automagically change criminals into law abiding, peaceful people, they only make being a criminal more lucrative.

Nothing is 100%, but I believe the only solution that will have any teeth whatsoever is to severely restrict gun ownership.

Well that answers the question as to which "side" you're on, did you receive your "Screw the individual, I'm a statist!" coffee mug, tote bag and badge in the mail yet?

No, I don't go along with the stance that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

The only answer to violence is to deal with the root cause, violent individuals and the best place to start reducing that count is with the locale were most of the violent individuals reside, in government, NOT by trampling all over the individual liberty of law abiding, peaceful citizens that are only seeking to protect themselves.

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that hair brained logic?
I'd love to take credit for creative thinking here, but I don't believe I'm the sole holder of that belief. It isn't a belief, actually; it is a FACT that the majority of guns confiscated in crimes were illegally held and they had ONCE UPON A TIME been legally owned, eventually falling into the wrong hands. Guns float. Less guns floating, less criminally held. It's a fact.
And it works in Europe and every place else where guns are not a God Given Right. Nothing's perfect but we in this country have an obscene amount of gun murder and at least a huge reason for that is how many guns are lying around.
BTW it's hare brained.

 

[TNHarley]

Trying to rationalize our freedoms away. Awesome.

Oh shut up, you brat.
Being free to own and operate a tool designed solely to kill is beyond the pale, imo.

Yes, he is a brat and I have him on ignore, but he does have a point, IMO.

you have me on ignore because i called political chick a hack and a lot of republicans act like fascists.
You are such an idiot