What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Biden proposes banning vast majority of all guns.

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
22,266
Reaction score
22,471
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
The fact that you and all the other gun nuts believe that the only way you know how to defend yourself is with a gun is indicative of what tiny, insecure, cowardly people you all are. Not to mention illogical.
The fact that you and all of the other gun control nuts believe the only way you can defend yourself is by disarming the populace is indicative of the tiny, insecure, cowardly people you all are. Not to mention illogical.
There I fixed it for you. I have a vast collection of firearms that I have collected over 50 years. None of them have been used in a crime. WTF do you get off telling me that I can't have them?
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
25,495
Reaction score
9,996
Points
490
No one is saying you don't have the right to defend yourself. You just don't have the right to defend yourself with semi-automatic assault rifles and maybe even handguns. The fact that you and all the other gun nuts believe that the only way you know how to defend yourself is with a gun is indicative of what tiny, insecure, cowardly people you all are. Not to mention illogical.

Looking for protection at home, alarms, dogs, baseball bats, knifes. Mace, pepper spray. There have been numerous studies, having a gun in the home INCREASES your risk of death. Tell me, how in the hell is that self-defense? And it increases the chance of death of every family member in the home, especially females. They are actually more likely to murdered if there is a gun in the home. Way to take care of your lady.

I have numerous guns, they aren't in the home. They are in the family armory, secretly stored behind a false wall. They are tools, each with a specific purpose, or purposes. Hunting duck takes a particular gun, hunting quail another, deer and bear require different guns, varmint hunting, like gophers, yet another type. And if you are wild boar hunting you best have a sidearm as backup.
No such thing as a semiautomatic assault weapon. And in this country we have that very right to defend ourselves with firearms.

And there have been numerous studies that conclude having a swimming pool increases your risk of death by drowning or studies that show if you have stairs in your house that you are at an increased risk of dying by falling down stairs or those that show if you own a car you are at greater risk of dying in a car accident.. Who are you to tell people what risks they should or shouldn't take?

And I don't care how many guns you have as long as they are all legally owned because it's none of my business just like it's none of yours how many or what kind of guns I own.

And yes a gun is a tool and it so happens to be the very best tool for self defense.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
22,266
Reaction score
22,471
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
assault weapon.
This statement always cracks me up. I wonder what these gun control nuts figure the purpose of a "weapon" is. The purpose is to ASSAULT something and it is not necessarily a human. Democrats are always looking to control someone else. If they stayed out of other people's business, they would get along much better.
 

Jaxson

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
836
Reaction score
333
Points
143
What if you wanted to hunt water fowl or upland game birds? A shot gun or two would be appropriate. Small game might be taken with a .22 while larger ungulates or bear would require larger calibers. Wild pigs are often taken with larger caliber hand guns. What difference does it make? Hunting is not the reason for the 2A. Defense from government over reach is the reason. The second amendment guarantees my RIGHT to bear arms. I don't owe you or anyone else a reason for why I want one.
Guarantees the right, sure, but does that mean any kind of arms, like nukes and cluster bombs, for example?
 

Jaxson

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
836
Reaction score
333
Points
143
Do you think the OKC bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing would have been stopped with gun control. The point is--IT IS NOT THE GUN. A person who is intent on murdering multiple people will find a way--if there is not a gun available, they will use fertilizer and diesel or pressure cookers and nuts and bolts. So what is the logic of removing self defense capability from law abiding citizens?
So because you yourself feel powerless to do anything, nobody should try anything to save children at school. Pretty juvenile.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
22,266
Reaction score
22,471
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
Guarantees the right, sure, but does that mean any kind of arms, like nukes and cluster bombs, for example?
It is clear you are speaking from an uninformed position. The fashion in which a weapon is used is limited. A shot gun that is set up to shoot someone coming through a booby trapped door is not protected. As another poster clearly stated, there are all kinds of nonsense that you can pull out of your ass but it doesn't change the fact that "the RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" This issue has been debated every way that can be imagined over the course of 246 years. We are a free people. Because you have the right to carry a baseball bat, does not give you the right to arbitrarily bash someone's head in with it. You wouldn't ban baseball bats. It is not the tool--it is the mental case that wields it. You need to redirect your attention toward the actual problem and fix the nut case.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
22,266
Reaction score
22,471
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
So because you yourself feel powerless to do anything, nobody should try anything to save children at school. Pretty juvenile.
Where did I say that I felt powerless to do anything? If all the money that has been spent on gun control had been directed to mental health in this country, you would have far fewer tragedies. I was clear in my statement that anything can be made into a weapon by a deranged fanatic. You seem to be incapable of identifying the actual problem which is THE DERANGED FANATIC. It is you who feel powerless to address that problem.
 

DigitalDrifter

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
42,177
Reaction score
18,952
Points
2,290
Location
Oregon
No one is saying you don't have the right to defend yourself. You just don't have the right to defend yourself with semi-automatic assault rifles and maybe even handguns. The fact that you and all the other gun nuts believe that the only way you know how to defend yourself is with a gun is indicative of what tiny, insecure, cowardly people you all are. Not to mention illogical.

Looking for protection at home, alarms, dogs, baseball bats, knifes. Mace, pepper spray. There have been numerous studies, having a gun in the home INCREASES your risk of death. Tell me, how in the hell is that self-defense? And it increases the chance of death of every family member in the home, especially females. They are actually more likely to murdered if there is a gun in the home. Way to take care of your lady.

I have numerous guns, they aren't in the home. They are in the family armory, secretly stored behind a false wall. They are tools, each with a specific purpose, or purposes. Hunting duck takes a particular gun, hunting quail another, deer and bear require different guns, varmint hunting, like gophers, yet another type. And if you are wild boar hunting you best have a sidearm as backup.

So you would ban semi-auto rifles and handguns?
 

Jaxson

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
836
Reaction score
333
Points
143
It is clear you are speaking from an uninformed position. The fashion in which a weapon is used is limited. A shot gun that is set up to shoot someone coming through a booby trapped door is not protected. As another poster clearly stated, there are all kinds of nonsense that you can pull out of your ass but it doesn't change the fact that "the RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" This issue has been debated every way that can be imagined over the course of 246 years. We are a free people. Because you have the right to carry a baseball bat, does not give you the right to arbitrarily bash someone's head in with it. You wouldn't ban baseball bats. It is not the tool--it is the mental case that wields it. You need to redirect your attention toward the actual problem and fix the nut case.
So people should be allowed to buy and own nukes. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

Jaxson

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
836
Reaction score
333
Points
143
Where did I say that I felt powerless to do anything? If all the money that has been spent on gun control had been directed to mental health in this country, you would have far fewer tragedies. I was clear in my statement that anything can be made into a weapon by a deranged fanatic. You seem to be incapable of identifying the actual problem which is THE DERANGED FANATIC. It is you who feel powerless to address that problem.
So you want to infringe the 2nd rights of people you deem deranged. That's called gun control.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
22,266
Reaction score
22,471
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
So people should be allowed to buy and own nukes. Thanks for clearing that up.
I believe they should be able to lock people up for being intentionally obtuse--starting with you.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
22,266
Reaction score
22,471
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
Guarantees the right, sure, but does that mean any kind of arms, like nukes and cluster bombs, for example?
What part of the UK are you posting from? What does this discussion have to do with you in the first place?
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
22,266
Reaction score
22,471
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
I've got you stumped over the nukes. Meaning, I own you. Better luck next time.
I answered your moronic nonsense in my first response to you junior. Learn to read. I even sent the instructions to you. Apparently UK schools are failing as well.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
68,442
Reaction score
23,097
Points
2,260

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
7,257
Reaction score
5,508
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
That I point out that you seem to be ok with 600+ mass shootings a year gets me this response: "Fuck you, you stupid retarded asshole". So that's a yes, you are ok with non-stop mass shootings in your country.
There are approximately three hundred and sixty million people residing in the USA. Out of that number, less than two shoot and kill more than FOUR people a day. The number is highly suspect anyway. The objective organizations list between six and sixty in 2019. The six hundred figure is an outlier and is highly suspect. According to the founder Mark Bryant, he and his TWELVE unpaid volunteers comb through all news sources for ANY story mentioning death or injury by firearms, then take the news story at face value, if there aren’t any data on the number of individuals in the story, these THIRTEEN people claim to “do exhaustive research” to determine the facts. How do thirteen people do all that research? What motivates his “volunteer researchers” to commit all their time to this? Why do his results exceed the maximum number of shooting found by Mother Earth which is acknowledged to be objective on the subject of mass shootings. Mother Earth has the highest number at 62. Why is his figure ten times as high? He refuse to publish his standards and claims that his volunteers each get a forty page manual on how to operate his study, but he won’t publish that manual. His “good guy with a gun” defensive firearm usage is certainly wrong because his standard is that the defender actually has to fire the firearm AND report it to police AND a news source has to pick up and publish the event.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top