If more guns makes a country safer

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Unemployment Rate Does Not Signal A Recession: Update - October 4, 2019
Oct. 4, 2019 10:29 AM ET

|The Unemployment Rate Does Not Signal A Recession: Update - October 4, 2019 | Seeking Alpha

MAGA Rebound: Manufacturing Unexpectedly Strengthens in Richmond Fed Survey | Breitbart

 

[Blues Man]

Look you Moron claiming your neighbor is nuts is well nuts. You keep making outrageous claims in this and any thread on weapons and when shown how moronic they are you double down on them. Tell ya what cupcake if you HONESTLY believe your neighbor is a threat REPORT him. And I don't mean anonymously on this board.

The last time I checked, there is no law against being a fruitcake. And we haven't any laws that we can arrest anyone for bad thoughts. Until he actually breaks a law, he just bears watching closely. Yah, I know, in the world you want to have, anyone not thinking exactly like you do should be arrested and sent to a special prison but not in the real world. Even a rightwing nutjob has the right to be a rightwing nutjob.

Wait a minute....isn't it the left that wants to have Red Tag laws? Red Tag laws seem like thought police to me.

Do you mean the Red Flag Laws? If so, think about it for a minute and then think about what you right wingers have proposed on getting guns away from the mentally ill and criminally insane. Well, cupcake, you can't stand it that a bunch of Liberals actually used one of your ideas and made a law out of it. Damn, you sure are hard to please.

Red flag laws are a flagrant violation of the constitution.

 

[Blues Man]

Just like you will be more likely to get killed in your own car, or get killed in your own swimming pool.

You people on the left are constantly telling us how drugs should be legal, and for those that kill themselves with the drugs, that's their problem. But when it comes to guns, make guns illegal so you don't irresponsibly accidentally kill yourself with it.

True someone can go on a rampage and throw bunch of pills and kill dozens.
Dude the world is laughing at you, more guns more deaths.....why are you so thick ?

When a person sells another drugs, it kills other people.

Apples and oranges. How can one use the drugs in a moment of anger to harm others like guns?
Because of millions of guns in the US there are thousands of deaths, school shootings, domestic homicides and so much more than other countries with less or no guns ? How did i know , I've lived in one and visited many with hardly any guns.
In some countries a gun incident is a national news story for days, in the US is a meh!!!

We also have a high amount of auto deaths compared to other countries as well, because we have more automobiles than all the others. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

If you take a nice safe middle-class suburb, write a law that all residents must own a firearm, their murder rate won't change one iota. Now go to a high crime lower income neighborhood, and make all guns illegal there. Their murder rate will continue to be high.

If you take away guns, they'll use cars. Take away cars, they'll use bombs. Take away bombs, they'll use clubs. Take away clubs, they'll use knives.

After murder rate passes NYC, London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for sharper knife control

Wrong wrong and wrong.

China has more people less guns and hence less gun crimes and deaths, India is the same thing.
Dude America is fucked to its core when it comes to gun culture. Have you ever been outside the US.? most countries don't have this madness that we have...they lie to you that you cant live without guns and yet they don't shit to stop the deaths.
Tell me how many countries kids gets shot at in schools ? Work places? Places of worship? Markets? Concerts?
You live in a little bubble.

The US in not supposed to be like most countries.

.003% of the population will ever kill anyone with a gun IOW you have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun in any year

No it's not 100% and it will never be 100% but it's a small price to pay for liberty

 

[Blues Man]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

You will more likely be killed by your own gun.

Yeah, the gun will come alive and kill him, won't it cockroach?

Only pussies need a gun to feel powerful.

You have no idea why people own guns.

 

[sealybobo]

we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

I want my own WMD... that would be so cool.

What if I manufactured a gun that could cut everyone in a football stadium in half with one pull of the trigger? Would you want me to possess this weapon? And I will sell them to liberals only all across the country. Like you won't sell wedding cakes to gays, I won't sell you my gun. But I'll arm every liberal in America with one of these. You okay with that sparky?

Go ahead, a 308 can take you out from 400 yards.

I would cut everyone in the entire stadium in half just by waving my gun around. 20 seconds.

You’re ok with me selling these guns to liberals?

I don’t sell to conservatives because they are unhinged. Evil. Says so in the atheist bible.

Typical dim crim. Admits his derangement. Die soon.

I hope you do

 

[sealybobo]

Imagine if you will, progressive cockroaches talking about murdering people with weapons that don't exist. Must be why the Clinton presidency "don't exist"!

Yea that’s why.....idiot

 

[sealybobo]

What if I manufactured a gun that could cut everyone in a football stadium in half with one pull of the trigger? Would you want me to possess this weapon? And I will sell them to liberals only all across the country. Like you won't sell wedding cakes to gays, I won't sell you my gun. But I'll arm every liberal in America with one of these. You okay with that sparky?

Why would you sell it only to liberals? Liberals are the reason we need to be armed in the first place. If we were ever to consider getting rid of guns, we'd have to get rid of liberals first.

Funny, around here, the biggest threat is from the right wingers who are armed. About 50 feet away is a ultra right winger who is armed that gets my vote for the most unstable. He's a Rumpster all the way through. If Rump were to lose the election or were to be convicted for removal by the Senate and call for an armed response, he would be one of the first to respond. And guess what, I would be his first target. That means that he wouldn't fare too well in the exchange. Rumps Army would fall pretty quickly since they would be mostly be made up of fruitcakes that would wage direct war on anyone that they deem as Liberals. And that means anyone not fruitcakes like them. That means that many Conservatives will be targeted as well. Your idea that you will need to get rid of all the Liberal's guns means that anyone not a Rumpster needs to be disarmed. Shades of Tyranny on that one. And that hasn't worked out real well in the past for other groups of people either. So keep spewing your crap. But do us all a favor and don't follow through with it.

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

Who can control a corrupt executive branch?

 

[sealybobo]

What if I manufactured a gun that could cut everyone in a football stadium in half with one pull of the trigger? Would you want me to possess this weapon? And I will sell them to liberals only all across the country. Like you won't sell wedding cakes to gays, I won't sell you my gun. But I'll arm every liberal in America with one of these. You okay with that sparky?

Why would you sell it only to liberals? Liberals are the reason we need to be armed in the first place. If we were ever to consider getting rid of guns, we'd have to get rid of liberals first.

Funny, around here, the biggest threat is from the right wingers who are armed. About 50 feet away is a ultra right winger who is armed that gets my vote for the most unstable. He's a Rumpster all the way through. If Rump were to lose the election or were to be convicted for removal by the Senate and call for an armed response, he would be one of the first to respond. And guess what, I would be his first target. That means that he wouldn't fare too well in the exchange. Rumps Army would fall pretty quickly since they would be mostly be made up of fruitcakes that would wage direct war on anyone that they deem as Liberals. And that means anyone not fruitcakes like them. That means that many Conservatives will be targeted as well. Your idea that you will need to get rid of all the Liberal's guns means that anyone not a Rumpster needs to be disarmed. Shades of Tyranny on that one. And that hasn't worked out real well in the past for other groups of people either. So keep spewing your crap. But do us all a favor and don't follow through with it.

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

But that won’t happen. You’ll see all the evidence. And if he’s removed republicans will have gone along.

8 Times trump put pressure on taylor to get Ukraine to announce they are looking into Biden.

Trump is guilty af. So nothing unjust if he’s removed. Sorry

 

[CrusaderFrank]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

Maduro agrees with this Useful Idiot! Americans must disarm -- for their own safety! Oh, yes and for the Children

Only my government troops should be armed

 

[SweetTea]

In reading through this thread I am reminded of just how different more urban areas of this country are than rural ones. We have totaly different life experiences and it is as if we live in other countries. Ideas of morality are different, ideas about guns are different, ideas about Socialsim vs Capitalism are diffrent, etc. These start differences should serve as a big red flag against bringing Socialism to the US. For mild Socialism, which is practiced through much of Western Europe, to be successful, you need people to have a common set of values and morals. Ironically, the same party that has been been pushing and continues to push for more diversity are the same ones pushing for Socialism. Obviously their definition of diverse is to support everything except for things they don't agree, e.g guns, religion, etc.

In addition to being a red flag against Socialism, thses stark differences also show the wisdom of founding fathers in creating the Electoral College. Despite what they may think, those living in NYC have absolutely no idea what it is like living in rural America. They are terrified of guns because they rarely see them unlesst they are in the hands of criminals. The opposite is true in rural America. We see guns routinely and rarely

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What if I manufactured a gun that could cut everyone in a football stadium in half with one pull of the trigger? Would you want me to possess this weapon? And I will sell them to liberals only all across the country. Like you won't sell wedding cakes to gays, I won't sell you my gun. But I'll arm every liberal in America with one of these. You okay with that sparky?

Why would you sell it only to liberals? Liberals are the reason we need to be armed in the first place. If we were ever to consider getting rid of guns, we'd have to get rid of liberals first.

Funny, around here, the biggest threat is from the right wingers who are armed. About 50 feet away is a ultra right winger who is armed that gets my vote for the most unstable. He's a Rumpster all the way through. If Rump were to lose the election or were to be convicted for removal by the Senate and call for an armed response, he would be one of the first to respond. And guess what, I would be his first target. That means that he wouldn't fare too well in the exchange. Rumps Army would fall pretty quickly since they would be mostly be made up of fruitcakes that would wage direct war on anyone that they deem as Liberals. And that means anyone not fruitcakes like them. That means that many Conservatives will be targeted as well. Your idea that you will need to get rid of all the Liberal's guns means that anyone not a Rumpster needs to be disarmed. Shades of Tyranny on that one. And that hasn't worked out real well in the past for other groups of people either. So keep spewing your crap. But do us all a favor and don't follow through with it.

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

Once a President is in office, he is bound to operate within the confines of the Office. If he doesn't then there is a system in place to deal with it. What you are seeing is that system in action. One of the jobs of the Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Rump has tried (and been very effective because of your free rides) in negating that. Well, the chickens have come to roost.

Same goes for gun regulations. At some point, society will demand some gun regulation. You and I may not fully agree on the level that Society settles for firearms regulation but it will happen. The only thing one side or the other can do is to dump hundreds of millions into the system to delay it. But in the end, Society will get what it wants. It could be from a ballot box, Executive Branch, Legislative or Judicial. But all of these, in the end, go back to the ballot box and the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitutions.

Meanwhile, you are going to scream that it's Unconstitutional and cry "Just wait until our next Savior comes, you'll see".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In reading through this thread I am reminded of just how different more urban areas of this country are than rural ones. We have totaly different life experiences and it is as if we live in other countries. Ideas of morality are different, ideas about guns are different, ideas about Socialsim vs Capitalism are diffrent, etc. These start differences should serve as a big red flag against bringing Socialism to the US. For mild Socialism, which is practiced through much of Western Europe, to be successful, you need people to have a common set of values and morals. Ironically, the same party that has been been pushing and continues to push for more diversity are the same ones pushing for Socialism. Obviously their definition of diverse is to support everything except for things they don't agree, e.g guns, religion, etc.

In addition to being a red flag against Socialism, thses stark differences also show the wisdom of founding fathers in creating the Electoral College. Despite what they may think, those living in NYC have absolutely no idea what it is like living in rural America. They are terrified of guns because they rarely see them unlesst they are in the hands of criminals. The opposite is true in rural America. We see guns routinely and rarely

Careful now. You just had what many on the gunnutter side deem a gun grabber agree with you. I've said the same thing and push for different gun regs for different areas like MOST of the US has already.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You do know you just shot yourself in the foot once again. You agreed that some firearm regulations are needed.

Yes I do, and we already have more regulations than are needed now. I don't think we need any more.

Democrats are not concerned about more regulations, Democrats are concerned with virtual confiscation; taking baby steps and baby steps to eventually make it so difficult to buy or own a gun that it would be impractical. That's why they want more regulations. It brings them closer to their goal.

Tell me, am I concerned with more Regulations and confiscating every firearm? Am I a Liberal? Do I support making it absolutely difficult to purchase or own a gun? Is that my goal?

It's certainly the liberal goal, and you seem to side with them on many ideas.

That's the cost of being a Moderate or Centrist. I don't buy into the hair brained political BS of either side. So I won't "Side" with either. When one is right, they are right. But when they are wrong, they are wrong. I can't help it that lately the Right is very, very wrong and needs one hell of a wakeup call. I am an old fashioned Fiscal Conservative Republican that no longer is represented by a Party. The last President that represented us was Ike.

Riddle me this: what are the Republicans wrong on?

I didn't bring my forklift and you aren't paying me enough to type that answer. Just like I didn't bring my forklift and you aren't paying me enough to do the same answer for the Democrats.

 

[NotYourBody]

I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.

What are you so afraid of that you need guns for protection?

I live on the border and I don't need guns for protection. According to the GOP I am living in the middle of the Meemaw raper/killers flooding across the border in what must be one of the most dangerous places in the world. And still, I've never needed a gun.

I guess I'm braver than you are. Gun nutters are the biggest snowflakes on the planet. Afraid of every damn thing and person in the world. Either that, or you have teeny tiny mushroom shaped peckers.

 

[NotYourBody]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

. . I leave my doors unlocked. . ..


. . . so there's that. . . . .

My door is unlocked ... but this is behind it.

You have some serious fear issues.

 

[Rustic]

Why would you sell it only to liberals? Liberals are the reason we need to be armed in the first place. If we were ever to consider getting rid of guns, we'd have to get rid of liberals first.

Funny, around here, the biggest threat is from the right wingers who are armed. About 50 feet away is a ultra right winger who is armed that gets my vote for the most unstable. He's a Rumpster all the way through. If Rump were to lose the election or were to be convicted for removal by the Senate and call for an armed response, he would be one of the first to respond. And guess what, I would be his first target. That means that he wouldn't fare too well in the exchange. Rumps Army would fall pretty quickly since they would be mostly be made up of fruitcakes that would wage direct war on anyone that they deem as Liberals. And that means anyone not fruitcakes like them. That means that many Conservatives will be targeted as well. Your idea that you will need to get rid of all the Liberal's guns means that anyone not a Rumpster needs to be disarmed. Shades of Tyranny on that one. And that hasn't worked out real well in the past for other groups of people either. So keep spewing your crap. But do us all a favor and don't follow through with it.

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

Once a President is in office, he is bound to operate within the confines of the Office. If he doesn't then there is a system in place to deal with it. What you are seeing is that system in action. One of the jobs of the Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Rump has tried (and been very effective because of your free rides) in negating that. Well, the chickens have come to roost.

Same goes for gun regulations. At some point, society will demand some gun regulation. You and I may not fully agree on the level that Society settles for firearms regulation but it will happen. The only thing one side or the other can do is to dump hundreds of millions into the system to delay it. But in the end, Society will get what it wants. It could be from a ballot box, Executive Branch, Legislative or Judicial. But all of these, in the end, go back to the ballot box and the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitutions.

Meanwhile, you are going to scream that it's Unconstitutional and cry "Just wait until our next Savior comes, you'll see".

Yes the nanny state… LOL

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Right now...Fully automatic weapons are banned.
Right now...criminals have them...But it's illegal for me to own one (without a permit).
The law forces me to be less armed than the criminals!

That's what gun control laws do!

Well, it's been well over 30 years since any crime has been done using a fully auto firearm. And then that was taken down real fast. Full Auto Weapons are NOT in the hands of Criminals. You are just making shit up again. You win an award. Wear it proudly.

View attachment 285308

If you have the money you can illegally buy any weapon you want.

Sure. But be very careful when you try and buy certain classes of weapons. There is an even to better odds that you may be trying to purchase it from an ATF agent. The more exotic, the higher that chance. Or you can go outside the US and do the same thing fairly easy. But getting that newly acquired exotic weapon into the US is another thing. And if someone has that much money, there is almost a zero chance they are getting those weapons to commit a crime inside the US. There is just too much money to be made overseas with these weapons. You need to start your narrative with "Once Upon a Time".

 

[fncceo]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

. . I leave my doors unlocked. . ..


. . . so there's that. . . . .

My door is unlocked ... but this is behind it.

You have some serious fear issues.

You can never be too prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse.

 

[NotYourBody]

Right now...Fully automatic weapons are banned.
Right now...criminals have them...But it's illegal for me to own one (without a permit).
The law forces me to be less armed than the criminals!

That's what gun control laws do!

Fully automatic weapons are not banned in this country.

You can still get one if you have the time and money. A lot of money.

Gun nutters should know this.

Automatic Weapons Are Legal, But It Takes A Lot To Get One Of The 630,000 In The U.S.

 

[NotYourBody]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

. . I leave my doors unlocked. . ..


. . . so there's that. . . . .

My door is unlocked ... but this is behind it.

You have some serious fear issues.

You can never be too prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse.

I choose not to prepare. I'll join up with the zombies. Seems a lot easier and less stressful.