Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.
No such thing as a semiautomatic assault weapon. And in this country we have that very right to defend ourselves with firearms.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.
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.assault weapon.
Guarantees the right, sure, but does that mean any kind of arms, like nukes and cluster bombs, for example?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.
So because you yourself feel powerless to do anything, nobody should try anything to save children at school. Pretty juvenile.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?
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.Guarantees the right, sure, but does that mean any kind of arms, like nukes and cluster bombs, for example?
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 because you yourself feel powerless to do anything, nobody should try anything to save children at school. Pretty juvenile.
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 people should be allowed to buy and own nukes. Thanks for clearing that up.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 you want to infringe the 2nd rights of people you deem deranged. That's called gun control.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.
I believe they should be able to lock people up for being intentionally obtuse--starting with you.So people should be allowed to buy and own nukes. Thanks for clearing that up.
What part of the UK are you posting from? What does this discussion have to do with you in the first place?Guarantees the right, sure, but does that mean any kind of arms, like nukes and cluster bombs, for example?
Either people can have nukes or you're infringing their rights.I believe they should be able to lock people up for being intentionally obtuse--starting with you.
I've got you stumped over the nukes. Meaning, I own you. Better luck next time.What part of the UK are you posting from? What does this discussion have to do with you in the first place?
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.I've got you stumped over the nukes. Meaning, I own you. Better luck next time.
Neither of those are "arms".Guarantees the right, sure, but does that mean any kind of arms, like nukes and cluster bombs, for example?
A nuclear weapon is not 'arms".So people should be allowed to buy and own nukes. Thanks for clearing that up.
Either people can have nukes or you're infringing their rights.
Uh, you might to want to rethink that. You ever hear of the SALT agreements?A nuclear weapon is not 'arms".
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.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.
