Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

[JoeB131]

So if guns and prisons make us safer, why aren't we safer?

Im safer with my AR-15

That's probably what Nancy Lanza thought... until her kid shot her with it.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So if guns and prisons make us safer, why aren't we safer?

Im safer with my AR-15

That's probably what Nancy Lanza thought... until her kid shot her with it.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

I am not Nancy Lanza.

 

[JoeB131]

Im safer with my AR-15

That's probably what Nancy Lanza thought... until her kid shot her with it.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

I am not Nancy Lanza.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time telling the difference....

She kept a shitload of guns because she thought the government was going to collapse or come to get her.

This is a big difference from you, how exactly?

 

[OODA_Loop]

That's probably what Nancy Lanza thought... until her kid shot her with it.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

I am not Nancy Lanza.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time telling the difference....

She kept a shitload of guns because she thought the government was going to collapse or come to get her.

This is a big difference from you, how exactly?

My AR-15 is secure and my son is not a known and demonstrated whack job.

 

[JoeB131]

I am not Nancy Lanza.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time telling the difference....

She kept a shitload of guns because she thought the government was going to collapse or come to get her.

This is a big difference from you, how exactly?

My AR-15 is secure and my son is not a known and demonstrated whack job.

I am happy that mental illness has not touched your family...

But would you give up your AR-15 if it did?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Honestly, I'm having a hard time telling the difference....

She kept a shitload of guns because she thought the government was going to collapse or come to get her.

This is a big difference from you, how exactly?

My AR-15 is secure and my son is not a known and demonstrated whack job.

I am happy that mental illness has not touched your family...

But would you give up your AR-15 if it did?

Why ?

 

[JoeB131]

exactly my point...

 

[OODA_Loop]

exactly my point...

My AR-15 is secure. You have no point.

 

[JoeB131]

exactly my point...

My AR-15 is secure. You have no point.

again- so was Nancy's until she was shot with it...

Or maybe he shot her with one of her other "secure" guns, and then took the AR-15 and shot all those kids.

 

[OODA_Loop]

exactly my point...

My AR-15 is secure. You have no point.

again- so was Nancy's until she was shot with it...

Or maybe he shot her with one of her other "secure" guns, and then took the AR-15 and shot all those kids.

Her guns weren't secure. If they were and her whack job spawn still got to them.

Lawful gun owners would be getting beat up about it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So if guns and prisons make us safer, why aren't we safer?

Im safer with my AR-15

That's probably what Nancy Lanza thought... until her kid shot her with it.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

And your 90% more likely to break your neck in a bathtub.

 

[daveman]

everyone is a potential murderer, dumbass. Most murders are people who were having an argument that went south...

And frankly, when the gun ban comes, most of you will meekly hand over your guns... A few of you the ATF will have to deal with... but trust me, you'll get about as much sympathy as these people got.

Just warms your heart, doesn't it? These Second Amendment purists?

Bring it, *****. Don't wait for the government. Go confiscate the guns yourself.

There will be no gun ban, despite the futile efforts of America-hating pussies like yourself.

It breaks your heart that people are free, doesn't it?

Move to Cuba. They have the government oppression you desire, and none of the freedom you loath.

A gun ban is inevitable. Every other industrialized country has done it.

Just as I thought. You're a coward.

Nevertheless, a gun ban is NOT inevitable. America is unique in history, and the dictates of history do not apply. But we can learn from the lessons of history -- and the lessons of history prove that gun bans do not lessen violence.

But I wouldn't expect an America-hater like you to acknowledge that.

 

[daveman]

[

lol.

dude goes "hey government can and has locked up its own citizens in cages but that doesnt mean we should have weapons, if they decide you belong in a cage for being a Jap, deal with it."

The point is, the fact you having a gun has never stopped the government from doing whatever the **** it wants... not once.

From Shay's Rebellion to Waco- the government always wins.

Which is why I always find the tiny penis crowd thinking they need military grade weapons to protect themselves from the big bad government to be laughable.

 

[daveman]

Since a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used in a sucide or domestic murder than killing "the scum of society", it just means more people will be burying loved ones.

Still bitterly clinging to that lie, huh?

Whatever it takes in service to criminals, I suppose. Do you have dreams of being someone's prison *****?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Im safer with my AR-15

That's probably what Nancy Lanza thought... until her kid shot her with it.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

And your 90% more likely to break your neck in a bathtub.

::yawn:: to this fake-ass stat the left keeps whipping out triumphantly, just as though the rest of us are as stupid and slow on the uptake as they are.

I am the craziest member of my family, and the one most likely to commit suicide - which we all know is the VAST bulk of Joe's lying stat - and I would never choose to do it by gunshot wound, so you leftists will have to excuse me if I don't live in terror of my guns just because you do.

 

[daveman]

If every person that we encounter on a daily basis were, indeed, carrying....this would be a rational fear.

It is rational since the 60s crime has soared and liberals want to punish the lawabiding citizens and not the criminals...

They'd rather send the Aurora shooter to a mental hospital and not death.

i'm glad the guy in CT killed himself, because liberals would defend him to the last and even try to get him out on parole...Can you imagine a parole hearing where those parents would have to show up every year....that's way more cruel and unusual than disembowling the shooter.

Had Lanza lived, he'd have ended up spending the rest of his life in a mental institution.

Kind of like Hinkley... 30 years since he shot Reagan, he's still in a mental hospital.

But you bring up an interesting point. If gun ownership and harshly punishing criminals was supposed to bring down the crime rate, then why has the crime rate "soared", as you say.

We lock up over 2 million Americans. Germany locks up 78,000. Japan locks up 69,000.

We have lots of guns. The Germans have very few, the Japanese have none.

The US had 15,953 murders, 11,101 of them committed with guns. (2012 figures)

Germany had 690 murders, 158 of them committed with guns (2010 figures, the latest the sight had.)

Japan had 582 murders, 11 of them committed with guns.


Hmmmmmm.....

So if guns and prisons make us safer, why aren't we safer?

If gun control makes us safer, why is there so much gun violence in Chicago?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is rational since the 60s crime has soared and liberals want to punish the lawabiding citizens and not the criminals...

They'd rather send the Aurora shooter to a mental hospital and not death.

i'm glad the guy in CT killed himself, because liberals would defend him to the last and even try to get him out on parole...Can you imagine a parole hearing where those parents would have to show up every year....that's way more cruel and unusual than disembowling the shooter.

Had Lanza lived, he'd have ended up spending the rest of his life in a mental institution.

Kind of like Hinkley... 30 years since he shot Reagan, he's still in a mental hospital.

But you bring up an interesting point. If gun ownership and harshly punishing criminals was supposed to bring down the crime rate, then why has the crime rate "soared", as you say.

We lock up over 2 million Americans. Germany locks up 78,000. Japan locks up 69,000.

We have lots of guns. The Germans have very few, the Japanese have none.

The US had 15,953 murders, 11,101 of them committed with guns. (2012 figures)

Germany had 690 murders, 158 of them committed with guns (2010 figures, the latest the sight had.)

Japan had 582 murders, 11 of them committed with guns.


Hmmmmmm.....

So if guns and prisons make us safer, why aren't we safer?

If gun control makes us safer, why is there so much gun violence in Chicago?

Or Washington DC?

 

[Jarlaxle]

When no guns are manufactured or available, there won't be any guns for the crooks to have.

WHich is how it works in the rest of the industrialized world...

.

You mean to say certain assault weapons?

No one is suggesting we should take away second amendment rights to own guns...

I don't think there is a second Amendment "right" to own guns.

Then you are an idiot.

In fact, there are no "rights" and never were. There are privilages society lets you have.

Yep...full retard.

Anyone who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to watch how fast "rights" vanish.

So the question is, under what circumstances should society allow you the privilage of owning a firearm?

My opinion, if you don't need it as part of your business or work, you don't need one. But if you are going to allow it, a gun should be like a car. You should get licensed, insured and registered if you are going to have one and you lose your privilages if you abuse them.

If the gun owners are going to claim no gun law is going to stop Adam Lanza without violating their privilage to own guns, then, yeah, then we need to take everyone's guns, because the cost of this privilage is too high.

Yep, Joey has gone FULL retard!

As usual.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

we need to take everyone's guns, because the cost of this privilage is too high.

[/QUOTE]

1) there is no way to take guns away without civil war

2) we have a Constitution and guns to protect ourselves against liberals, without both right there would be no civilization on earth.

 

[petro]

When no guns are manufactured or available, there won't be any guns for the crooks to have.

WHich is how it works in the rest of the industrialized world...

.

You mean to say certain assault weapons?

No one is suggesting we should take away second amendment rights to own guns...

I don't think there is a second Amendment "right" to own guns.

In fact, there are no "rights" and never were. There are privilages society lets you have.

Anyone who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to watch how fast "rights" vanish.

So the question is, under what circumstances should society allow you the privilage of owning a firearm?

My opinion, if you don't need it as part of your business or work, you don't need one. But if you are going to allow it, a gun should be like a car. You should get licensed, insured and registered if you are going to have one and you lose your privilages if you abuse them.

If the gun owners are going to claim no gun law is going to stop Adam Lanza without violating their privilage to own guns, then, yeah, then we need to take everyone's guns, because the cost of this privilage is too high.

I have never read a statement that shows a such complete ignorance of history and the text and intent of the Bill of Rights. A brief history lesson for the incorrect.

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.


The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to the new government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

Simple Simon.