Serious question about gun control
Comments
-
Well there's your problem. You're damaging the property of others. Acts of aggression. Inappropriate. Simple, really.2001400ex said:
Nothing I guess. Driving over cars and shooting buildings would just be part of the beautification process.Blackie said:
Is it not roadworthy? What's the problem with driving it through downtown?2001400ex said:
So I buy a tank. Because that's cool. Then one day I decide to drive it through downtown Seattle.Blackie said:
No. Any free person should be able to own weapons. Assault/battery/killing/etc of humans with or without the use of weapons is (and should be) illegal.2001400ex said:
Oh so anyone who owns a gun for aggression shouldn't be able to own one? Got it.Blackie said:
and I honestly would have zero problem with you being able to build or buy them, assuming you were using them for defense and not aggression.2001400ex said:
Ok, then I want to own a tank and bazooka.Blackie said:
funny thing, the 2A refers to "arms" not "guns"2001400ex said:
The government has tanks and airplanes. Seriously. Wtf is a gun going to do?PurpleJ said:It's all about authority and control. Jack shit to do with saving lives, and if you believe that line you deserve to be lined up and shot. If the government gave a shit about your life they wouldn't pimp pharmaceuticals and abortion. You have the rights to own a gun, just as long as it's the type they want you to have. 100 million people with full autos would endanger the establishment. Can't have that.
That's the stupidest thing ever.
Nice try.
See the problem there? -
Can we just make it illegal to go into a school and shoot everyone already?2001400ex said:I am for the 2nd amendment and our right to bear arms. But there's some meaningful things we can do to save some lives. Such as background checks on all gun sales, limiting magazine sizes, restricting sales of some types of guns, better tracking of the internet to find people before they commit these crimes (it's amazing how many were public about their intent).
I don't want to limit freedoms, but if you post online that you are going to shoot up a school, is it not reasonable that you get questioned about it?
So really, the question is, why do some of you stick to "it's the 2nd amendment, there should be zero restrictions on guns"?
Fuck sakes man...wake up. No matter what fucking law gets passed, people are going to have guns...end of story. Here is a thought; why don't we just give everyone (without a criminal record) a gun. Let's train gen. pop. not to be a bunch of fucking sheep and defend themselves against psychopaths like that fuck face? I mean, we've clearly got the whole thing dialed in (PM @IrishDawg22 for further info on that) to the point that we are trying to make more laws that add to the law we already have.
Fuck Jonathan Smith...he should be fired. -
Read your previous comments and see how stupid you sound.Blackie said:
Well there's your problem. You're damaging the property of others. Acts of aggression. Inappropriate. Simple, really.2001400ex said:
Nothing I guess. Driving over cars and shooting buildings would just be part of the beautification process.Blackie said:
Is it not roadworthy? What's the problem with driving it through downtown?2001400ex said:
So I buy a tank. Because that's cool. Then one day I decide to drive it through downtown Seattle.Blackie said:
No. Any free person should be able to own weapons. Assault/battery/killing/etc of humans with or without the use of weapons is (and should be) illegal.2001400ex said:
Oh so anyone who owns a gun for aggression shouldn't be able to own one? Got it.Blackie said:
and I honestly would have zero problem with you being able to build or buy them, assuming you were using them for defense and not aggression.2001400ex said:
Ok, then I want to own a tank and bazooka.Blackie said:
funny thing, the 2A refers to "arms" not "guns"2001400ex said:
The government has tanks and airplanes. Seriously. Wtf is a gun going to do?PurpleJ said:It's all about authority and control. Jack shit to do with saving lives, and if you believe that line you deserve to be lined up and shot. If the government gave a shit about your life they wouldn't pimp pharmaceuticals and abortion. You have the rights to own a gun, just as long as it's the type they want you to have. 100 million people with full autos would endanger the establishment. Can't have that.
That's the stupidest thing ever.
Nice try.
See the problem there? -
People will still die in cars without seat belts. So why should we have laws requiring seat belts?JECAR said:
Can we just make it illegal to go into a school and shoot everyone already?2001400ex said:I am for the 2nd amendment and our right to bear arms. But there's some meaningful things we can do to save some lives. Such as background checks on all gun sales, limiting magazine sizes, restricting sales of some types of guns, better tracking of the internet to find people before they commit these crimes (it's amazing how many were public about their intent).
I don't want to limit freedoms, but if you post online that you are going to shoot up a school, is it not reasonable that you get questioned about it?
So really, the question is, why do some of you stick to "it's the 2nd amendment, there should be zero restrictions on guns"?
Fuck sakes man...wake up. No matter what fucking law gets passed, people are going to have guns...end of story. Here is a thought; why don't we just give everyone (without a criminal record) a gun. Let's train gen. pop. not to be a bunch of fucking sheep and defend themselves against psychopaths like that fuck face? I mean, we've clearly got the whole thing dialed in (PM @IrishDawg22 for further info on that) to the point that we are trying to make more laws that add to the law we already have.
Fuck Jonathan Smith...he should be fired.
See how stupid you sound? -
Huh? How's that?2001400ex said:
Read your previous comments and see how stupid you sound.Blackie said:
Well there's your problem. You're damaging the property of others. Acts of aggression. Inappropriate. Simple, really.2001400ex said:
Nothing I guess. Driving over cars and shooting buildings would just be part of the beautification process.Blackie said:
Is it not roadworthy? What's the problem with driving it through downtown?2001400ex said:
So I buy a tank. Because that's cool. Then one day I decide to drive it through downtown Seattle.Blackie said:
No. Any free person should be able to own weapons. Assault/battery/killing/etc of humans with or without the use of weapons is (and should be) illegal.2001400ex said:
Oh so anyone who owns a gun for aggression shouldn't be able to own one? Got it.Blackie said:
and I honestly would have zero problem with you being able to build or buy them, assuming you were using them for defense and not aggression.2001400ex said:
Ok, then I want to own a tank and bazooka.Blackie said:
funny thing, the 2A refers to "arms" not "guns"2001400ex said:
The government has tanks and airplanes. Seriously. Wtf is a gun going to do?PurpleJ said:It's all about authority and control. Jack shit to do with saving lives, and if you believe that line you deserve to be lined up and shot. If the government gave a shit about your life they wouldn't pimp pharmaceuticals and abortion. You have the rights to own a gun, just as long as it's the type they want you to have. 100 million people with full autos would endanger the establishment. Can't have that.
That's the stupidest thing ever.
Nice try.
See the problem there?
Seems like you're making a blanket assumption of malice on the part of anyone who would seek to obtain weapons. I'm not. "Shall not be infringed" and all that warm and fuzzy stuff. -
The way you worded my comment on the tank was about my intent. 99.9% of gun owners don't intend to be aggressive upon purchase. Until they decide to shoot up a school. See the problem there?Blackie said:
Huh? How's that?2001400ex said:
Read your previous comments and see how stupid you sound.Blackie said:
Well there's your problem. You're damaging the property of others. Acts of aggression. Inappropriate. Simple, really.2001400ex said:
Nothing I guess. Driving over cars and shooting buildings would just be part of the beautification process.Blackie said:
Is it not roadworthy? What's the problem with driving it through downtown?2001400ex said:
So I buy a tank. Because that's cool. Then one day I decide to drive it through downtown Seattle.Blackie said:
No. Any free person should be able to own weapons. Assault/battery/killing/etc of humans with or without the use of weapons is (and should be) illegal.2001400ex said:
Oh so anyone who owns a gun for aggression shouldn't be able to own one? Got it.Blackie said:
and I honestly would have zero problem with you being able to build or buy them, assuming you were using them for defense and not aggression.2001400ex said:
Ok, then I want to own a tank and bazooka.Blackie said:
funny thing, the 2A refers to "arms" not "guns"2001400ex said:
The government has tanks and airplanes. Seriously. Wtf is a gun going to do?PurpleJ said:It's all about authority and control. Jack shit to do with saving lives, and if you believe that line you deserve to be lined up and shot. If the government gave a shit about your life they wouldn't pimp pharmaceuticals and abortion. You have the rights to own a gun, just as long as it's the type they want you to have. 100 million people with full autos would endanger the establishment. Can't have that.
That's the stupidest thing ever.
Nice try.
See the problem there?
Seems like you're making a blanket assumption of malice on the part of anyone who would seek to obtain weapons. I'm not. "Shall not be infringed" and all that warm and fuzzy stuff. -
Risk I'm willing to take. I'm not one to dictate life based on the actions of the 0.1%.2001400ex said:
The way you worded my comment on the tank was about my intent. 99.9% of gun owners don't intend to be aggressive upon purchase. Until they decide to shoot up a school. See the problem there?Blackie said:
Huh? How's that?2001400ex said:
Read your previous comments and see how stupid you sound.Blackie said:
Well there's your problem. You're damaging the property of others. Acts of aggression. Inappropriate. Simple, really.2001400ex said:
Nothing I guess. Driving over cars and shooting buildings would just be part of the beautification process.Blackie said:
Is it not roadworthy? What's the problem with driving it through downtown?2001400ex said:
So I buy a tank. Because that's cool. Then one day I decide to drive it through downtown Seattle.Blackie said:
No. Any free person should be able to own weapons. Assault/battery/killing/etc of humans with or without the use of weapons is (and should be) illegal.2001400ex said:
Oh so anyone who owns a gun for aggression shouldn't be able to own one? Got it.Blackie said:
and I honestly would have zero problem with you being able to build or buy them, assuming you were using them for defense and not aggression.2001400ex said:
Ok, then I want to own a tank and bazooka.Blackie said:
funny thing, the 2A refers to "arms" not "guns"2001400ex said:
The government has tanks and airplanes. Seriously. Wtf is a gun going to do?PurpleJ said:It's all about authority and control. Jack shit to do with saving lives, and if you believe that line you deserve to be lined up and shot. If the government gave a shit about your life they wouldn't pimp pharmaceuticals and abortion. You have the rights to own a gun, just as long as it's the type they want you to have. 100 million people with full autos would endanger the establishment. Can't have that.
That's the stupidest thing ever.
Nice try.
See the problem there?
Seems like you're making a blanket assumption of malice on the part of anyone who would seek to obtain weapons. I'm not. "Shall not be infringed" and all that warm and fuzzy stuff. -
Hondo getting skullfucked in another thread. What else is new.
-
The Viet Cong and I were laughing at the assertion that small arms are useless against tanks and aircraft and then Hondo just got more stupid and stupid as it went along so we said fuck it let's go get high
-
If your definition of skull fucking is what Kenny lawyer did to UW.... Then yeah. I guess.CuntWaffle said:Hondo getting skullfucked in another thread. What else is new.
-
I'm against seat belt laws too
-
don't twist. society is stacked this year from top to bottom. in a normal year gun control would have won at least 8 times.RaceBannon said:Gun control laws worked harder then ever this summer and really bought in
-
Wait until Trump gets his own guys in there. 2018 is going to be special.creepycoug said:
don't twist. society is stacked this year from top to bottom. in a normal year gun control would have won at least 8 times.RaceBannon said:Gun control laws worked harder then ever this summer and really bought in
-
Have you heard that Adult Skull Fucker was hacked?CuntWaffle said:What else is new.
-
Your faggotry knows no bounds...2001400ex said:
People will still die in cars without seat belts. So why should we have laws requiring seat belts?JECAR said:
Can we just make it illegal to go into a school and shoot everyone already?2001400ex said:I am for the 2nd amendment and our right to bear arms. But there's some meaningful things we can do to save some lives. Such as background checks on all gun sales, limiting magazine sizes, restricting sales of some types of guns, better tracking of the internet to find people before they commit these crimes (it's amazing how many were public about their intent).
I don't want to limit freedoms, but if you post online that you are going to shoot up a school, is it not reasonable that you get questioned about it?
So really, the question is, why do some of you stick to "it's the 2nd amendment, there should be zero restrictions on guns"?
Fuck sakes man...wake up. No matter what fucking law gets passed, people are going to have guns...end of story. Here is a thought; why don't we just give everyone (without a criminal record) a gun. Let's train gen. pop. not to be a bunch of fucking sheep and defend themselves against psychopaths like that fuck face? I mean, we've clearly got the whole thing dialed in (PM @IrishDawg22 for further info on that) to the point that we are trying to make more laws that add to the law we already have.
Fuck Jonathan Smith...he should be fired.
See how stupid you sound?
So you think that making more gun laws is going to cause less crime and we'll have less shootings? Ask Chicago or D.C. how that's going for them.
And by the way, comparing seat belt laws and gun laws to each other is like saying every LPT is the same with or with Griswold present and accounted for.
-
You clearly didn't read why I discussed seatbelts. Otherwise, nice rant.JECAR said:
Your faggotry knows no bounds...2001400ex said:
People will still die in cars without seat belts. So why should we have laws requiring seat belts?JECAR said:
Can we just make it illegal to go into a school and shoot everyone already?2001400ex said:I am for the 2nd amendment and our right to bear arms. But there's some meaningful things we can do to save some lives. Such as background checks on all gun sales, limiting magazine sizes, restricting sales of some types of guns, better tracking of the internet to find people before they commit these crimes (it's amazing how many were public about their intent).
I don't want to limit freedoms, but if you post online that you are going to shoot up a school, is it not reasonable that you get questioned about it?
So really, the question is, why do some of you stick to "it's the 2nd amendment, there should be zero restrictions on guns"?
Fuck sakes man...wake up. No matter what fucking law gets passed, people are going to have guns...end of story. Here is a thought; why don't we just give everyone (without a criminal record) a gun. Let's train gen. pop. not to be a bunch of fucking sheep and defend themselves against psychopaths like that fuck face? I mean, we've clearly got the whole thing dialed in (PM @IrishDawg22 for further info on that) to the point that we are trying to make more laws that add to the law we already have.
Fuck Jonathan Smith...he should be fired.
See how stupid you sound?
So you think that making more gun laws is going to cause less crime and we'll have less shootings? Ask Chicago or D.C. how that's going for them.
And by the way, comparing seat belt laws and gun laws to each other is like saying every LPT is the same with or with Griswold present and accounted for. -
I like to use seatbelt laws to prop up gun control, even though they are two completely different situations. I do that.
So you're shooting a gun while wearing a seatbelt. Still a drive by murder dude. -
You can't read for comprehension either.PurpleJ said:I like to use seatbelt laws to prop up gun control, even though they are two completely different situations. I do that.
So you're shooting a gun while wearing a seatbelt. Still a drive by murder dude. -
You think I read your posts. Cute.2001400ex said:
You can't read for comprehension either.PurpleJ said:I like to use seatbelt laws to prop up gun control, even though they are two completely different situations. I do that.
So you're shooting a gun while wearing a seatbelt. Still a drive by murder dude.
-
Sounds like you care.PurpleJ said:
You think I read your posts. Cute.2001400ex said:
You can't read for comprehension either.PurpleJ said:I like to use seatbelt laws to prop up gun control, even though they are two completely different situations. I do that.
So you're shooting a gun while wearing a seatbelt. Still a drive by murder dude. -
This thread is finishing skrong.
-
Wtf is a bazooka? Have they even been around since WWII.2001400ex said:
Ok, then I want to own a tank and bazooka.Blackie said:
funny thing, the 2A refers to "arms" not "guns"2001400ex said:
The government has tanks and airplanes. Seriously. Wtf is a gun going to do?PurpleJ said:It's all about authority and control. Jack shit to do with saving lives, and if you believe that line you deserve to be lined up and shot. If the government gave a shit about your life they wouldn't pimp pharmaceuticals and abortion. You have the rights to own a gun, just as long as it's the type they want you to have. 100 million people with full autos would endanger the establishment. Can't have that.
That's the stupidest thing ever.
Great repeating Biden's talking point as always.
