Reagan on gun control
Comments
-
What benefit does any law abiding citizen receive?2001400ex said:
Clearly it's all about you.sarktastic said:Why do more laws need to be passed for law abiding people to follow?
What teal or imagined benefit do I receive? -
There's already too many laws. Police politics decides who these laws are enforced upon...I stay out of the sun and I try not to ever get a tan. Most police emphasis is on strongly enforcing the $$$-making DUIs and car seizures/various other seizures at the moment.
It should be illegal to kill someone. -
Maybe that innocent citizens being shot would be able to live longer. I'm sure that's not a benefit to a degenerate like you.sarktastic said:
What benefit does any law abiding citizen receive?2001400ex said:
Clearly it's all about you.sarktastic said:Why do more laws need to be passed for law abiding people to follow?
What teal or imagined benefit do I receive? -
How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
-
Fuck you are stupid.sarktastic said:How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
-
I'll just start by saying I own a lot of guns and they are all hunting style weapons. I don't really ever shoot them, I don't really like them, and I don't consider them a prize possession. They aren't even in my will because I don't care who gets them. They are in the safe, when I go have at them. I have them because it's America, I'm a hunter, and I have the means to buy as many as I ever feel the need. I'm pro gun, not a gun nut.
Having said that the 2nd Amendment was singed into law in 1791. The closed cartridge bullet wasn't even really a thing in this country yet. People had muskets that fired one ball extremely inaccurately and took over a minute to load. A semi-automatic AR-15 would have been a weapon of mass destruction in 1791, period. No fucking way would the average person be allowed to legally have one in those times. It's the reason why you can't have a 7.62 mini-gun mounted to the side of your car today. It's why you can't buy an RPG right now.
Assault rifles, 9 round capacity shotguns, and handguns with a magazine over 10 rounds have no practical use for a law abiding citizen. Zero. Other than the kind of human being that would own a pit bull no one is using an assault rifle to hunt big game. No burglar needs over 10 rounds to take down. You can only have three to four rounds in your shotgun when you hunt for anything anywhere.
An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is a WMD as shown in the Colorado theater shooting. A massive pistol magazine is a WMD as shown in the Tucson shooting when Gabby Giffords was shot along with countless more. Kip Kinkle with a Ruger 10/22 and a banana clip fucked up Thurston High pretty badly.
Can a mass of people with bolt action rifles, like say a well regulated militia still fuck up an enemy foreign or domestic? Absolutely.
People don't want weapons that can kill a crowd of people without having to reload because of protection. They like them because they are cool. The people bitching about the ban of assault rifles and high capacity magazines wouldn't have their life changed in any real actual way if they were gone tomorrow.
Practical guns should never even be looked at when talking about gun control. A gun that can wipe out a theater full of people without a magazine change doesn't need to be in the public's hands. -
Can a mass of people with bolt action rifles, like say a well regulated militia still fuck up an enemy foreign or domestic? Absolutely.
*snicker*... sure. YOU try it first. -
I like the idea of giving each citizen the opportunity to own a tank and/or attack chopper. The commute to work would be a lot more badass and we could fuck with Canadians on the weekend.
-
Warshington DC and Chicago would like to have a word.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid.sarktastic said:How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
-
How does it feel to be a Rush Limbaugh,, dick sucking......pawz said:
Warshington DC and Chicago would like to have a word.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid.sarktastic said:How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
-
Momma had to tie a steak around your neck so the dog would play with you.2001400ex said:
How does it feel to be a Rush Limbaugh,, dick sucking......pawz said:
Warshington DC and Chicago would like to have a word.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid.sarktastic said:How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
Whatever the DNC equivalent to the Koch brothers is, you're their bitch. Fuck, you are stupid and gullible. -
From the dude who only has the response of "but but but Chicago and DC".pawz said:
Momma had to tie a steak around your neck so the dog would play with you.2001400ex said:
How does it feel to be a Rush Limbaugh,, dick sucking......pawz said:
Warshington DC and Chicago would like to have a word.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid.sarktastic said:How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
Whatever the DNC equivalent to the Koch brothers is, you're their bitch. Fuck, you are stupid and gullible. -
Agree or not, pawz makes a valid point at least with Chicago. That city has the one of the nations toughest gun laws, and they've seen a 20% increase in gun deaths.2001400ex said:
How does it feel to be a Rush Limbaugh,, dick sucking......pawz said:
Warshington DC and Chicago would like to have a word.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid.sarktastic said:How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
-
Most of these cases don't invlove everyday sane people. Most of these cases involve people that have either had a criminal or mental issue background. These people shouldn't have guns. Joe Blow across the street with a streaky clean record and no records of mental issues isn't shooting up movie theatres and schools. The only thing that banning certain weapons does is limit one avenue for criminals to obtain guns, which is vehicular and residential thefts. However, this is a small avenue considering the black market provides more than enough access for these criminals to obtain these weapons. Criminals will be criminals.Mosster47 said:I'll just start by saying I own a lot of guns and they are all hunting style weapons. I don't really ever shoot them, I don't really like them, and I don't consider them a prize possession. They aren't even in my will because I don't care who gets them. They are in the safe, when I go have at them. I have them because it's America, I'm a hunter, and I have the means to buy as many as I ever feel the need. I'm pro gun, not a gun nut.
Having said that the 2nd Amendment was singed into law in 1791. The closed cartridge bullet wasn't even really a thing in this country yet. People had muskets that fired one ball extremely inaccurately and took over a minute to load. A semi-automatic AR-15 would have been a weapon of mass destruction in 1791, period. No fucking way would the average person be allowed to legally have one in those times. It's the reason why you can't have a 7.62 mini-gun mounted to the side of your car today. It's why you can't buy an RPG right now.
Assault rifles, 9 round capacity shotguns, and handguns with a magazine over 10 rounds have no practical use for a law abiding citizen. Zero. Other than the kind of human being that would own a pit bull no one is using an assault rifle to hunt big game. No burglar needs over 10 rounds to take down. You can only have three to four rounds in your shotgun when you hunt for anything anywhere.
An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is a WMD as shown in the Colorado theater shooting. A massive pistol magazine is a WMD as shown in the Tucson shooting when Gabby Giffords was shot along with countless more. Kip Kinkle with a Ruger 10/22 and a banana clip fucked up Thurston High pretty badly.
Can a mass of people with bolt action rifles, like say a well regulated militia still fuck up an enemy foreign or domestic? Absolutely.
People don't want weapons that can kill a crowd of people without having to reload because of protection. They like them because they are cool. The people bitching about the ban of assault rifles and high capacity magazines wouldn't have their life changed in any real actual way if they were gone tomorrow.
Practical guns should never even be looked at when talking about gun control. A gun that can wipe out a theater full of people without a magazine change doesn't need to be in the public's hands.
Stricter gun laws and penalties will keep gun crime criminals in jail longer, thus keeping more of them off the street.
Stricter background checks will also keep the insane who are less knowledgeable about the black market away from guns.
Making it more difficult for citizens to sell their guns privately helps control the purchase avenues as well.
These alone will help the problem. But if you think limiting the types of guns normal law following people can get will have much significance, you are sadly mistaken. -
-
Don't they know shooting people with guns is ILLEGAL in Chicago?GrundleStiltzkin said:
-
I heard someplace 100% of the multiple shootings have occurred in "Gun Free Zone's"greenblood said:
Agree or not, pawz makes a valid point at least with Chicago. That city has the one of the nations toughest gun laws, and they've seen a 20% increase in gun deaths.2001400ex said:
How does it feel to be a Rush Limbaugh,, dick sucking......pawz said:
Warshington DC and Chicago would like to have a word.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid.sarktastic said:How did that work out for our latest gun free zone victims where the criminal chose to ignore existing law(s)?
-
We're 0-1 against CanadaPurpleJ said:I like the idea of giving each citizen the opportunity to own a tank and/or attack chopper. The commute to work would be a lot more badass and we could fuck with Canadians on the weekend.
-
RaceBannon said:
We're 0-1 against CanadaPurpleJ said:I like the idea of giving each citizen the opportunity to own a tank and/or attack chopper. The commute to work would be a lot more badass and we could fuck with Canadians on the weekend.
Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews say hi.
-
Pig War?RaceBannon said:
We're 0-1 against CanadaPurpleJ said:I like the idea of giving each citizen the opportunity to own a tank and/or attack chopper. The commute to work would be a lot more badass and we could fuck with Canadians on the weekend.
-
I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is impossible and I'm fucking retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me "Apache" and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can't accept me you're a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.PurpleJ said:I like the idea of giving each citizen the opportunity to own a tank and/or attack chopper. The commute to work would be a lot more badass and we could fuck with Canadians on the weekend.
-
I am reading Killing Reagan, excellent read. Just finished the section where Reagan gets shot.
I think even Reagan would agree, Hinckley had some good gun control. -
Hinckley didn't kill Reagan. Olly North killed Reagan
-
Fawn Hall pics or STFU.sarktastic said:Hinckley didn't kill Reagan. Olly North killed Reagan
-
Who's this Reagan guy you all keep talking about?
Does he poast here? -
*Raygun
-
Tarnished him, yes. Killed him, no. Alzheimer's did that. Except for the "he didn't react quickly enough on AIDS" crowd, and some of the other panty wearing Liberals, he's a respected, even beloved figure.sarktastic said:Hinckley didn't kill Reagan. Olly North killed Reagan
-
da aides got him?
