Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

[OldLady]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

 

[KGB]

It is your responsibility to educate yourself. You are not a child, and I am not your daddy.

It is your responsibility, in an argument, to back up your ideas with reasons. At least if you were being honest you would. You can't respond because you don't know shit about what you're talking about. You just don't like hearing me say the 2nd is an anachronism. Just another aggressive shit talker, like so many others.

The 2nd Amendment is a God-given right laid down by the Founding Fathers.

 

[KGB]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

 

[KGB]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

Yeah good luck getting 2/3 of the Congress & 3/4 of the states to agree with that kind of stupidity...you understand the Constitution has only been amended 27 times in 231 years. And only one Amendment in all that time nullified another. It isn’t happening...

 

[fncceo]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

 

[Dr Grump]

Thank goodness for guns ... otherwise, we'd still be English.

Like that's a bad thing....

A seriously bad thing ...

View attachment 340991

Spot the difference

 

[fncceo]

Thank goodness for guns ... otherwise, we'd still be English.

Like that's a bad thing....

A seriously bad thing ...

View attachment 340991

Spot the difference

View attachment 341006

Elected by the people of The United States ... not ruling by divine right of kings.

 

[OldLady]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

If every blessed effort to enact gun controls weren't blocked by the antiquated Second, I wouldn't consider messing with it.

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

 

[fncceo]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

If every blessed effort to enact gun controls weren't blocked by the antiquated Second, I wouldn't consider messing with it.

Again, you're welcome to try. Good luck with that.

 

[fncceo]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

The Supreme Court of The United States disagrees with you.

 

[Dr Grump]

Elected by the people of The United States ... not ruling by divine right of kings.

In truth, elected by four/five states. The rest don't matter.
Just as an FYI, Charlie boy has no power at all. Even his mother has very limited power....it's all for show.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Supreme Court of The United States disagrees with you.

M'eh..the USSC is a joke.

 

[fncceo]

The Supreme Court of The United States disagrees with you.

M'eh..the USSC is a joke.

Interesting that you would feel that way.

 

[freyasman]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

If every blessed effort to enact gun controls weren't blocked by the antiquated Second, I wouldn't consider messing with it.

Why do you want to so badly?
What is it that you like about being weaker and more helpless than you can be?

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

The Supreme Court of The United States disagrees with you.

Heller. You're right. Thanks.

 

[OldLady]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

If every blessed effort to enact gun controls weren't blocked by the antiquated Second, I wouldn't consider messing with it.

Why do you want to so badly?
What is it that you like about being weaker and more helpless than you can be?

I would like us to be SAFER from being shot by another civilian.

 

[OldLady]

Early meeting tomorrow. I'll leave y'all alone for awhile. It's been fun.

 

[freyasman]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

If every blessed effort to enact gun controls weren't blocked by the antiquated Second, I wouldn't consider messing with it.

Why do you want to so badly?
What is it that you like about being weaker and more helpless than you can be?

I would like us to be SAFER from being shot by another civilian.

Gun control doesn't accomplish that.

So why do you want it?

 

[fncceo]

This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON.

A Constitutional Right doesn't need a reason.

The Constitution allows for change. It has been done numerous times. It's not the Ten Commandments.

You're more than welcome to try.

If every blessed effort to enact gun controls weren't blocked by the antiquated Second, I wouldn't consider messing with it.

Why do you want to so badly?
What is it that you like about being weaker and more helpless than you can be?

I would like us to be SAFER from being shot by another civilian.

Would you feel better being shot by a non-civilian?