Vince Vaughn is (HCH)OKG
Comments
-
Because a gun is a dangerous instrumentality designed to kill others?Blackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars
It's not like "yahoos with small arms" would have any success against a modern-day military. See, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, where small arms are ubiquitous. The insurgencies there have had success because of access to MANPADS (in the case of the Soviet invasion) and rockets/artillery/explosives in the case of the US -
AZDuck said:
Because a gun is a dangerous instrumentality designed to kill others?Blackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars
It's not like "yahoos with small arms" would have any success against a modern-day military. See, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, where small arms are ubiquitous. The insurgencies there have had success because of access to MANPADS (in the case of the Soviet invasion) and rockets/artillery/explosives in the case of the US
-
Exactly. That was a movie, not a documentaryRaceBannon said:AZDuck said:
Because a gun is a dangerous instrumentality designed to kill others?Blackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars
It's not like "yahoos with small arms" would have any success against a modern-day military. See, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, where small arms are ubiquitous. The insurgencies there have had success because of access to MANPADS (in the case of the Soviet invasion) and rockets/artillery/explosives in the case of the US -
Shut your mouthAZDuck said:
Exactly. That was a movie, not a documentaryRaceBannon said:AZDuck said:
Because a gun is a dangerous instrumentality designed to kill others?Blackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars
It's not like "yahoos with small arms" would have any success against a modern-day military. See, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, where small arms are ubiquitous. The insurgencies there have had success because of access to MANPADS (in the case of the Soviet invasion) and rockets/artillery/explosives in the case of the US
We do know that places where the citizens have no guns are tyrannical because they can be.
Besides guns are for protection against fellow citizens. I don't own one but I don't care if someone does. Law abiding citizens will obey whatever laws get passed. Criminals won't
Guns can be run like drugs and booze if they are illegal.
-
So the government should determine who gets to defend themselves from it, and place significantly limiting restrictions on the extent to which those individuals can try to do so? Meanwhile the government's forces can develop and use pretty much any weapon that suits their fancy - against the citizenry even.AZDuck said:
Because a gun is a dangerous instrumentality designed to kill others?Blackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars
It's not like "yahoos with small arms" would have any success against a modern-day military. See, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, where small arms are ubiquitous. The insurgencies there have had success because of access to MANPADS (in the case of the Soviet invasion) and rockets/artillery/explosives in the case of the US
Doesn't seem like a secure, free state to me.
-
I know you're being sarcastic, but guns don't kill people, rappers do.AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars
https://youtu.be/ICG0MuzEYzw -
-
Page 25 - http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf2001400ex said:All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones. Take mass shootings. They've only happened in places that don't allow guns.
Link?? A lot of what he says is true and I'm a Vince Vaughan fan. But that comment is FS.There are only two mass public shootings since at least 1950 that have not been part of some other crime where at least four people have been killed in an area where civilians are generally allowed to have guns. These are the International House of Pancakes restaurant in Carson City, Nevada on September 6, 2011 and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011.
-
Guns were and are ubiquitous in Iraq. Did not stop Saddam Hussein from being a tyrant, mass murderer and all around bad guy.
Drugs and booze are also regulated, as they should be -
A good point. Perhaps possession and proven will to use chemical weapons to put down entire provinces has a deterrent effect.AZDuck said:Guns were and are ubiquitous in Iraq. Did not stop Saddam Hussein from being a tyrant, mass murderer and all around bad guy.
Drugs and booze are also regulated, as they should be
