Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[M14 Shooter]

People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.

When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.

Move along... nothing to see here... move along...

 

[ChrisL]

The fear and paranoia of the anti-rights crowd is amazing. Lol.

 

[P@triot]

I love this convoluted logic.

The fact that the VAST majority or car drivers never drive drunk means there should be no laws against drunk driving.

The fact that the VAST majority of IV drug users never OD means we should have no drug laws.

After all. There are anti drug laws and anti drunk driving laws. But do those laws stop drunk drivers and drug users? **** no. So get rid of gun laws, drunk driving laws, drug laws etc. They serve no purpose. Most druggies and drunks are law abiding. Most of the time. And watch this country turn into paradise right before your eyes. I know you'll agree skull.

Talk about "convoluted logic". Lets start with the most painfully obvious - the right to bear arms is so important, that it was included in the Bill of Rights just to further ensure there wouldn't possibly be any infringement upon it (of course - our founders couldn't anticipate that there would ever be a day where people born in America would actually hate America, hate liberty, and hate the Constitution like libtards do - but I digress). So pretty much, everything after that makes your argument null and void.

However, just to take it further because I can - by your "logic" - because there are alcoholics that drive drunk, we should ban all automobiles. Murder - just like driving while intoxicated - is already outlawed. So you're not comparing apples-to-apples here junior (typical of libtards). The real question is, if you recognize that drunk driving is a problem, why don't you want to ban automobiles like you want to ban guns?

Oh yeah....that's right....because you like and own automobiles. While you were conditioned to hate and not own firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The real question is, if you recognize that drunk driving is a problem, why don't you want to ban automobiles like you want to ban guns?

Because the people cannot be made subservient to the state until the people are disarmed.

 

[ChrisL]

I love this convoluted logic.

The fact that the VAST majority or car drivers never drive drunk means there should be no laws against drunk driving.

The fact that the VAST majority of IV drug users never OD means we should have no drug laws.

After all. There are anti drug laws and anti drunk driving laws. But do those laws stop drunk drivers and drug users? **** no. So get rid of gun laws, drunk driving laws, drug laws etc. They serve no purpose. Most druggies and drunks are law abiding. Most of the time. And watch this country turn into paradise right before your eyes. I know you'll agree skull.

Talk about "convoluted logic". Lets start with the most painfully obvious - the right to bear arms is so important, that it was included in the Bill of Rights just to further ensure there wouldn't possibly be any infringement upon it (of course - our founders couldn't anticipate that there would ever be a day where people born in America would actually hate America, hate liberty, and hate the Constitution like libtards do - but I digress). So pretty much, everything after that makes your argument null and void.

However, just to take it further because I can - by your "logic" - because there are alcoholics that drive drunk, we should ban all automobiles. Murder - just like driving while intoxicated - is already outlawed. So you're not comparing apples-to-apples here junior (typical of libtards). The real question is, if you recognize that drunk driving is a problem, why don't you want to ban automobiles like you want to ban guns?

Oh yeah....that's right....because you like and own automobiles. While you were conditioned to hate and not own firearms.

I agree with most of your post, except the "libtards" part. Some of us agree with a little bit from both sides. Does that mean we are also "libtards"? I also don't agree with the "get rid of laws" statement. They do serve a purpose. However, the laws about certain guns and ammo do serve no purpose, when the people who would use guns to kill others are already breaking numerous laws.

 

[P@triot]

No you dumb ****. Everyone should be able to own a gun. Including felons. You think felons don't have a need to defend themselves?

You can always count on a libtard to resort to swearing and child-like tantrums when they get their ass handed to them with facts. Tell me Wilbur....what is your plan for law enforcement once guns are banned? They can only carry tasers?

More importantly - what in the hell is your plan for the U.S. military once guns are outlawed? Are we supposed to fight ISIS on the battlefield with rocks & sling-shots while they reign down RPG's and 7.62 rounds from AK-47's at us?!? Idiot.

 

[ChrisL]

I mean, if a person is going to actually kill people, do people think a law about which gun they can LEGALLY use is going to help matters? Lol. That's silly.

 

[P@triot]

I agree with most of your post, except the "libtards" part. Some of us agree with a little bit from both sides. Does that mean we are also "libtards"?

Well that depends. Is what you agree with them irrational, ignorant, and unconstitutional? Then yes, that would make those of you also "libtards". If what you agree with them on is rooted in logic, reason, and is Constitutional, then no. Hope that helps....

 

[P@triot]

I mean, if a person is going to actually kill people, do people think a law about which gun they can LEGALLY use is going to help matters? Lol. That's silly.

That's been my point for decades. We already have laws against murder which are punishable by death. If that doesn't stop a person from picking up a gun and killing, why the frick would outlawing guns stop a person from killing?!?! This is why I refer to them as "libtards". It is a special kind of stupid which a rational person can't even begin to wrap their head around.

 

[P@triot]

The real question is, if you recognize that drunk driving is a problem, why don't you want to ban automobiles like you want to ban guns?

Because the people cannot be made subservient to the state until the people are disarmed.

Bingo! We have a winner! And yet liberals will vehemently tell you that they have no desire to impose their will on others or make anyone subservient to the state. Yeah....ok. If you're going to have a disingenuous position, you better be able to mask it a lot better than what they do. It's so easy to see through them with their irrational positions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco; The population of California is 38,144,818. How's is that for a contrast?

The population per sq. mile in vermont is 6, in CA it is 239.

 

[Rustic]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco; The population of California is 38,144,818. How's is that for a contrast?

The population per sq. mile in vermont is 6, in CA it is 239.

No one needs permission from firearms to kill people…

 

[Skull Pilot]

2nd, you dumb shit. You NEED cons to have guns. Matter of fact you need all.criminals.to have guns.

How the **** else you gonna scare some dude into buying a gun he don't need?

Fear translates into more sales.
The NRA know this. Why don't you?

I'm sure I could give you a list a mile long of shit you have that you don't need

FYI What anyone else has or doesn't have is none of your ******* business

 

[Timmy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples . Like gun nut arizona vs gun control massachusetts . Same size population , both with a large city .

 

[M14 Shooter]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

The population of VT is 200,000 less than the population of San Francisco; The population of California is 38,144,818. How's is that for a contrast?

Only the pathologically dishonest or the criminally ignorant could believe that your response has any meaning.
The claim made related gun laws to crime rates; crime rates take populations into account.

 

[M14 Shooter]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples .

I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.

 

[sealybobo]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

We are going up north with 2 kids in bear country in the spring when they have cubs with them. Imagine not allowing us to take weapons with us. I should get bear mace but nothing like a gun.

Also imagine people are trying to break in to get me. Or someone is coming over to kill his girlfriend. Imagine her not having a gun.

We just need to register guns better

 

[Timmy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples .

I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.

You afraid to compare similar states, aren't you . That's makes you intellectually dishonest .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I mean, if a person is going to actually kill people, do people think a law about which gun they can LEGALLY use is going to help matters? Lol. That's silly.

That's been my point for decades. We already have laws against murder which are punishable by death. If that doesn't stop a person from picking up a gun and killing, why the frick would outlawing guns stop a person from killing?!?! This is why I refer to them as "libtards". It is a special kind of stupid which a rational person can't even begin to wrap their head around.

The death penalty could be a deterrent if applied properly.

Currently, many sit on death row for well over a decade before they actually serve their sentence. At times, fifteen to eighteen years.

If we ever desired the death penalty to be a deterrent, all cases would have to be fast-tracked including appeals so that the sentence could be carried out less than six months from the time the crime was committed.

If we had the guts to allow the media to show it live on television, it would reduce murders even more.

But even without the executions being televised, we could probably reduce murders in this country by about 50% doing it my way.

 

[ChrisL]

I mean, if a person is going to actually kill people, do people think a law about which gun they can LEGALLY use is going to help matters? Lol. That's silly.

That's been my point for decades. We already have laws against murder which are punishable by death. If that doesn't stop a person from picking up a gun and killing, why the frick would outlawing guns stop a person from killing?!?! This is why I refer to them as "libtards". It is a special kind of stupid which a rational person can't even begin to wrap their head around.

The death penalty could be a deterrent if applied properly.

Currently, many sit on death row for well over a decade before they actually serve their sentence. At times, fifteen to eighteen years.

If we ever desired the death penalty to be a deterrent, all cases would have to be fast-tracked including appeals so that the sentence could be carried out less than six months from the time the crime was committed.

If we had the guts to allow the media to show it live on television, it would reduce murders even more.

But even without the executions being televised, we could probably reduce murders in this country by about 50% doing it my way.

I'm against the death penalty, but I am for LWOP. I guess I'm a "libtard" now.