zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 21,177
- 2,145
- 140
It wouldn't matter if he was. Our Constitutional rights are not based on our recreational activities.
Your constitution has with the absurde nonsense the USA makes since the 1970ies of the last century absolutelly nothing to do. Muzzle loaders are not the problem.
They can be taken away, but not by the opinion of somebody. It would have to be taken away by a judge.
And which judge knows sonething about most simple weapon laws and most simple war weapon control laws?
Yes we have gun laws, but not strong enough penalties for criminals that use guns.
You remember me to someone who prosteted with the slogan "We need laws against crimes!". What a new inspiration! Your inspiration is much more absurde: "No one needs laws because the criminals anyway will win!"
Anytime we have a problem involving a gun, the Communists
Why do you not argue with Ghenghis Khan?
want to disarm the law abiding citizens instead of making things harder on the criminals, which makes as much sense as taking all the disposable lighters out of a city instead of going after the arsonist. Police in Chicago
I had an offer once to go to Chicago - but I saw not any future for me in the USA. Nevertheless at this time of history Chicago had been a nice and very interesting city
have complained about arresting people illegally carrying a firearm and seeing them back out on the street the next day.
So your argument in now: "Because shit happens let us make more shit!"
Democrats are for criminals,
I'm also for criminals ... ah sorry: for sinners! But it are nor the sin of the parents which costed the life of their children - it are the sins of the whole USA which costed the life of their children. That's not fair!
but we don't have an intelligent enough electorate to understand that. They keep voting for these very same people every election.
You will find here in Germany not anyone - except extremists and terrorists - who is against strict weapon laws.
Sure I have evidence. Most occupied home break ins usually happen to our elderly or disabled who are likely not armed to protect themselves.
And how many real facts exists behind such a popular opinion which seems to be plausible? Is it really pausible what you say here? The main cause of death for the grandchildren of this elderly people are firearms in the USA! What choice do you suggest have this elderly people to do? The choice between Satan or Beelzebub?
Outside of that criminals make sure their intended target is not occupied because they don't know if the home owner is armed or not. You break into my home, I start painting walls with your blood and it's all perfectly legal. The criminals are well aware of that factor.
This remembers me to an house owner in the USA who murdered a German exchange student in his garage and tried to argue he had the right to do so.
Even more evidence is most of these screwballs who plan a mass murder do so where they know people are not armed. They avoid places where there is armed security or no restrictions on armed citizens. This is why our schools are prime targets. Nobody has a gun in many of those schools. The mass shooting before that, the same thing. It happened in New York where it's difficult to get a license to carry and if you do have to use a firearm for self-defense or to save another person, you can still be charged with a crime or at the very least, civil suits for liability.
Very short: The NRA did forbid weapons on their own meeting now. Reason: Trump spoke and his security advisers took care for this. So why not to do the same in the whole USA and to protect in this way the right of free speech from everyone, everywhere and at any time?
Last edited: