RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 12:49:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ... But that is beside the point. The main point is that everyone from every other country insists that their way is better. The United States is doing this wrong or that wrong. Which is why even those that might agree with you people tell you all to fuck off. But of course it never happens that some US know-it-all blames whatever foreign entity (remember "Sweden" ...?) for being irresponsible retards who need some proper american-style bullying to follow the good example (the best way to win foreign sympathies for sure). Which is why even those with sympathies for the USA feel it could be a good thing that you defend your absurd militia amendment as a justification for shooting each other wholesale. It certainly keeps the loonies occupied. Any US historians might please answer, when your so indispensable militias saw military action after the 1860s? Fighting each other ... Militias that saw action after the 1860's? Okay, ever hear of Teddy Roosevelt's rough riders? Spanish American war. But lets really fuck your argument. Under Federal laws, states retain the right to have militias or state defense forces, and some states still do, at last count, 21 out of fifty. Also under that law, state defense forces are purely volunteer, not paid, must supply their own uniforms, weapons and most of the time, provisions. Ammo supplied by the state when called up. Going a bit further, in many western states, the counties also have the right, under the same law, to call up units of volunteers in times of crisis, be it SAR for a lost hiker or whatever, filling sand bags, or in the worst case, to aid law enforcement to control civil unrest in times of disaster. The simple reason for this is that the National Guard, while partially under the state governor's control is maintained as a reserve to the regular army, in which case, it is not considered a militia unit, since state militias cannot be nationalized by the president. And the reason for that is because when the United States got tired of the elected jackasses in London telling them what they will do with no representation from the colonies, the militias that fought against the British Armies were considered mutinous troops and shot on the spot, since the militias in the colonies were subject to the King's orders first, the colonies second. So, basically, the entire bill of rights were to insure that no Federal Government could screw the people over the way that Parliament and good King George the asshole did. In a very real sense, the American gun culture is a direct hold over from the revolution and the war of 1812 (that kind of started because the royal navy refused to believe that US flagged ships were crewed by Americans, and press ganged Americans into Royal Navy service) creating a paranoia that exists to this day. So, yeah, we hold the second as sacred. We are an independent stubborn people who distrust anyone suggesting that we hang up our guns in some gun club or give them up completely. Is gun violence a problem? Yes. Is there a way to fix the problem that would make gun owners happy and not feel like the minority is out to fuck us over? Yes Is it a simple solution? Yes Oh, one last thing, gun violence is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, which of course is ignored, but hey, violence across the board is on the rise, not just gun violence. We have inner city youth joining gangs because they see no way out of a bad situation. We have minorities who think the cops are targeting them exclusively. We have a rampant drug problem where people will rob someone for a couple of bucks to get a fix. We have a segment of the population who want to roll back civil rights and that makes minorities a bit apprehensive, and both sides are ready to kill the other with any means available. Domestic violence is on the rise. The problem is not just guns, it is the fucking people with guns or any thing else they can get their hands on. And thanks to the internet, you can download the directions to make a pipe bomb, FAE bomb, truck bomb, phosgene gas, mustard gas, chlorine gas..... Not to mention every freaking teenager knows how to make Molotov cocktails. Finally, did you know the wonderful British developed this great weapon in WW2 called the Sten gun? The damn thing is so simple to make that blacksmiths all over England and Scotland turned em out by the tens of thousands.... And the DIY instructions are available on the internet. So, IF someone wanted to get a gun, thanks to the wonders of the modern age, you can learn how to do it watching a youtube video. oh, that includes making the cartridges from lipstick tubes like the Jewish people living in Palestine did to fight the British and the Arabs before the formation of Israel. Hell, I told that to a local ATF guy, who insisted I was bull shitting him, so a gunsmith friend of mine and I took our disbeliever to the shop and built a fully automatic 45 caliber sten gun in about four hours. Then we proceed to make 50 .45 caliber rounds to use in it from lipstick tubes that we bought at a local supply store for those who like to make their own lipstick and used fishing weights to make the lead. While he was impressed, he was also a bit concerned, especially when he found the DIY video and step by step instructions on the net. Of course there is another weapon of equal simplicity, the AK47. there are back alley shops in India and the Middle east turning them out by the thousands.

BlackSinMaster -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 1:03:26 PM)
You have said umpteen times you can state my name and several correspondences from this very weekend and yet seem unable to do so. And have lied since my existence on here. Are you a good person? Do you believe I am a good person or bad person? Can i ask you a question have you ever seen me lie?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 1:31:09 PM)
quote: : ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ...Oh, one last thing, gun violence is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, which of course is ignored, but hey, violence across the board is on the rise, not just gun violence. We have inner city youth joining gangs because they see no way out of a bad situation. We have minorities who think the cops are targeting them exclusively. We have a rampant drug problem where people will rob someone for a couple of bucks to get a fix. We have a segment of the population who want to roll back civil rights and that makes minorities a bit apprehensive, and both sides are ready to kill the other with any means available. Domestic violence is on the rise. Many other first-world countries are also suffering the same general problems. However, only the USA is attempting to solve these problems with firearms. There was something on British TV last week that said something along the lines of: There have been more gun deaths in any one year in the US than ALL the deaths of US, UN and allied troops during the whole of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over 16 years. No matter how you slice the cake, that's a deplorable and sickening statistic to have. Apparently, there were over 15,300 US gun-related deaths in schools last year; in the UK there were none and only 26 nationwide. Background checks (if and when they are carried out) won't catch people like the Vegas killer as he wasn't known to the law prior to the incident. People don't trust anyone to maintain any sort of national database on anything; so that notion is not a solution. Anyone hell-bent on killing is not going to abide by any law and will procure whatever weapon they can to acieve their goal. Is there a simple solution? Yes! Register every single weapon above a BB gun (as they are in most other countries). Limit the number and types of gun available to the general public. Ban the carrying of guns in public places. No, not gun-free zones, make the whole country a gun-free zone in public places. The only people that should have access to firearms are law enforcement and the military and only while on duty; any other time they are a civilian. The only caveat are those with exceptions (like in the Australia). These measures don't infringe on the 2nd and you can still own and bear arms. People can still be called upon to form a militia if needed as described in the constitution. It would have stopped the Vegas massacre because the guns wouldn't have been allowed in the hotel - a luggage check/scan would have stopped him bringing them in. Remember, he passed all the background checks and bought his arsenal legally. Would it stop deaths by knives? No. it wouldn't. Death by knife or by gun (or car, or baseball bat etc) is still dead. No argument there. But think of every massacre there has been in the US in recent years... How many would have succeeded with a knife instead of a gun? Pretty much none of them. I'd like to see how many people the Vegas killer would have killed by throwing knives from the 32nd floor. And half the problem with the US is enforcing the laws they do have. And the other half of the problem (stupidity aside) is inconsistent laws across the country.

BlackSinMaster -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 1:46:35 PM)
name one women on here you have called? Or man?

blnymph -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 1:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ... And the reason for that is because when the United States got tired of the elected jackasses in London telling them what they will do with no representation from the colonies, the militias that fought against the British Armies were considered mutinous troops and shot on the spot, since the militias in the colonies were subject to the King's orders first, the colonies second. So, basically, the entire bill of rights were to insure that no Federal Government could screw the people over the way that Parliament and good King George the asshole did. In a very real sense, the American gun culture is a direct hold over from the revolution and the war of 1812 (that kind of started because the royal navy refused to believe that US flagged ships were crewed by Americans, and press ganged Americans into Royal Navy service) creating a paranoia that exists to this day. So, yeah, we hold the second as sacred. We are an independent stubborn people who distrust anyone suggesting that we hang up our guns in some gun club or give them up completely. ... So do you still fear the redcoats (would be Canadian mounted police now, I guess) invading the lost colonies and forcing you under the yoke of HM QE II? Come on I know you know 1776 and 1812 are long gone, and since then the Brits were no longer interested in invading south of the 49th parallel (only the other way round ...) For sure stens and kalashnikovs can be and are produced by Afghan and Pakistani (and Texan) blacksmiths for shooting salvos in the air and at each other but would you therefore consider Afghanistan and Pakistan having become safer countries lately?

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 1:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: : ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ...Oh, one last thing, gun violence is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, which of course is ignored, but hey, violence across the board is on the rise, not just gun violence. We have inner city youth joining gangs because they see no way out of a bad situation. We have minorities who think the cops are targeting them exclusively. We have a rampant drug problem where people will rob someone for a couple of bucks to get a fix. We have a segment of the population who want to roll back civil rights and that makes minorities a bit apprehensive, and both sides are ready to kill the other with any means available. Domestic violence is on the rise. Many other first-world countries are also suffering the same general problems. However, only the USA is attempting to solve these problems with firearms. There was something on British TV last week that said something along the lines of: There have been more gun deaths in any one year in the US than ALL the deaths of US, UN and allied troops during the whole of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over 16 years. No matter how you slice the cake, that's a deplorable and sickening statistic to have. Apparently, there were over 15,300 US gun-related deaths in schools last year; in the UK there were none and only 26 nationwide. Background checks (if and when they are carried out) won't catch people like the Vegas killer as he wasn't known to the law prior to the incident. People don't trust anyone to maintain any sort of national database on anything; so that notion is not a solution. Anyone hell-bent on killing is not going to abide by any law and will procure whatever weapon they can to acieve their goal. Is there a simple solution? Yes! Register every single weapon above a BB gun (as they are in most other countries). Limit the number and types of gun available to the general public. Ban the carrying of guns in public places. No, not gun-free zones, make the whole country a gun-free zone in public places. The only people that should have access to firearms are law enforcement and the military and only while on duty; any other time they are a civilian. The only caveat are those with exceptions (like in the Australia). These measures don't infringe on the 2nd and you can still own and bear arms. People can still be called upon to form a militia if needed as described in the constitution. It would have stopped the Vegas massacre because the guns wouldn't have been allowed in the hotel - a luggage check/scan would have stopped him bringing them in. Remember, he passed all the background checks and bought his arsenal legally. Would it stop deaths by knives? No. it wouldn't. Death by knife or by gun (or car, or baseball bat etc) is still dead. No argument there. But think of every massacre there has been in the US in recent years... How many would have succeeded with a knife instead of a gun? Pretty much none of them. I'd like to see how many people the Vegas killer would have killed by throwing knives from the 32nd floor. And half the problem with the US is enforcing the laws they do have. And the other half of the problem (stupidity aside) is inconsistent laws across the country. There weren't 15,00 murders in the US last year let alone in the schools so your sources are, as usual, garbage. France had more gun deaths in one day than terror attacks have caused in the U S in the last year. The largets death tolls have come from arson and bombs so again you are full of it. The problem is lack of enforcement, it doesn't make any difference what the law is if it isn't enforced. The other problem is gangs and drugs.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 1:58:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: : ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ...Oh, one last thing, gun violence is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, which of course is ignored, but hey, violence across the board is on the rise, not just gun violence. We have inner city youth joining gangs because they see no way out of a bad situation. We have minorities who think the cops are targeting them exclusively. We have a rampant drug problem where people will rob someone for a couple of bucks to get a fix. We have a segment of the population who want to roll back civil rights and that makes minorities a bit apprehensive, and both sides are ready to kill the other with any means available. Domestic violence is on the rise. Many other first-world countries are also suffering the same general problems. However, only the USA is attempting to solve these problems with firearms. There was something on British TV last week that said something along the lines of: There have been more gun deaths in any one year in the US than ALL the deaths of US, UN and allied troops during the whole of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over 16 years. No matter how you slice the cake, that's a deplorable and sickening statistic to have. Apparently, there were over 15,300 US gun-related deaths in schools last year; in the UK there were none and only 26 nationwide. Background checks (if and when they are carried out) won't catch people like the Vegas killer as he wasn't known to the law prior to the incident. People don't trust anyone to maintain any sort of national database on anything; so that notion is not a solution. Anyone hell-bent on killing is not going to abide by any law and will procure whatever weapon they can to acieve their goal. Is there a simple solution? Yes! Register every single weapon above a BB gun (as they are in most other countries). Limit the number and types of gun available to the general public. Ban the carrying of guns in public places. No, not gun-free zones, make the whole country a gun-free zone in public places. The only people that should have access to firearms are law enforcement and the military and only while on duty; any other time they are a civilian. The only caveat are those with exceptions (like in the Australia). These measures don't infringe on the 2nd and you can still own and bear arms. People can still be called upon to form a militia if needed as described in the constitution. It would have stopped the Vegas massacre because the guns wouldn't have been allowed in the hotel - a luggage check/scan would have stopped him bringing them in. Remember, he passed all the background checks and bought his arsenal legally. Would it stop deaths by knives? No. it wouldn't. Death by knife or by gun (or car, or baseball bat etc) is still dead. No argument there. But think of every massacre there has been in the US in recent years... How many would have succeeded with a knife instead of a gun? Pretty much none of them. I'd like to see how many people the Vegas killer would have killed by throwing knives from the 32nd floor. And half the problem with the US is enforcing the laws they do have. And the other half of the problem (stupidity aside) is inconsistent laws across the country. Remember that you have already admitted that the problem is people and that when you have people who want to kill they will find another weapon if guns were banned.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 2:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Remember that you have already admitted that the problem is people and that when you have people who want to kill they will find another weapon if guns were banned. No other weapon kills from over 100 yards. Easy access to guns are the root of the problem in the US. Yes, they will use another weapon but it won't be anywhere near as deadly as a gun.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 2:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Remember that you have already admitted that the problem is people and that when you have people who want to kill they will find another weapon if guns were banned. No other weapon kills from over 100 yards. Easy access to guns are the root of the problem in the US. Yes, they will use another weapon but it won't be anywhere near as deadly as a gun. Bombs have killed more in an attack than guns. Fire has killed more in a single attack than guns. This is the first time an attack from 1900 yds has taken place wit a gun so that is not relevant. A knife is invincible once you disarm the potential victims. The problem is more gangs than anything else . BTW McVeigh was 100 yds from his victims with his bomb.

Nnanji -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 2:27:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ... And the reason for that is because when the United States got tired of the elected jackasses in London telling them what they will do with no representation from the colonies, the militias that fought against the British Armies were considered mutinous troops and shot on the spot, since the militias in the colonies were subject to the King's orders first, the colonies second. So, basically, the entire bill of rights were to insure that no Federal Government could screw the people over the way that Parliament and good King George the asshole did. In a very real sense, the American gun culture is a direct hold over from the revolution and the war of 1812 (that kind of started because the royal navy refused to believe that US flagged ships were crewed by Americans, and press ganged Americans into Royal Navy service) creating a paranoia that exists to this day. So, yeah, we hold the second as sacred. We are an independent stubborn people who distrust anyone suggesting that we hang up our guns in some gun club or give them up completely. ... So do you still fear the redcoats (would be Canadian mounted police now, I guess) invading the lost colonies and forcing you under the yoke of HM QE II? Come on I know you know 1776 and 1812 are long gone, and since then the Brits were no longer interested in invading south of the 49th parallel (only the other way round ...) For sure stens and kalashnikovs can be and are produced by Afghan and Pakistani (and Texan) blacksmiths for shooting salvos in the air and at each other but would you therefore consider Afghanistan and Pakistan having become safer countries lately? I wonder if Germany fears it will gas people again.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 2:47:11 PM)
According to the bbc, a source so often quoted by gun regulation supporters.... US gun deaths averaged 11000 a year between 2001 and 2011 But that all so quoted 30000 a year? Well, when you add accidental shootings, police shootings, suicides, and people shooting people, yep you get 30000 average gun deaths a year. Now, since this is all about gun violence, we take out accidents, suicides and police shootings, the number drops to less than half that or the BBC average of around 11000 a year. Now, everyone seems to agree you can not criminalize stupid, or even legislate stupidity prevention, otherwise we would not have shows like "World's Dumbest" or "Ridiculousness." If a person really wants to kill themselves, they are gonna find a way, so that one is out. So that leaves the criminal element and mass shooters, or spree shooters. So, the minority pro regulation solution is to basically step all over the rights of the majority of gun owners who have never attempted murder, or shot up a concert. And for the record, the mass killings with the largest deaths did not have guns as the means. There was a school bombing in 1927 which still remains the largest mass killing at a school (or anywhere) in the US. There was the truck bombing of the World Trade Center. The OKC Federal building by Timothy McVeigh. But people focus on guns, why? Because guns can be controlled or banned. Some nut with the desire to build a bomb and blow up a few hundred people cant. Some nut who wants to take house hold chemicals and make a poison gas to let loose in a Mall cant be controlled. And everyone of you "more gun regulations" are stupidly ignorant of the reason the fucking laws we have dont work now. So, unless you want to talk a sensible, enforceable solution, shut the fuck up.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 2:52:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Remember that you have already admitted that the problem is people and that when you have people who want to kill they will find another weapon if guns were banned. No other weapon kills from over 100 yards. Easy access to guns are the root of the problem in the US. Yes, they will use another weapon but it won't be anywhere near as deadly as a gun. Bombs have killed more in an attack than guns. Fire has killed more in a single attack than guns. This is the first time an attack from 1900 yds has taken place wit a gun so that is not relevant. A knife is invincible once you disarm the potential victims. The problem is more gangs than anything else . BTW McVeigh was 100 yds from his victims with his bomb. How many bomb attacks do you get compared to gun deaths?? Maybe more die in a single bomb attack compared to a single gun attack. But when compared to the sheer number of gun attacks compared to bombs, the numbers are stupidly ridiculous. Picking out stupid comparisons is apples to oranges; it's senseless. There are almost 12,000 gun deaths in the US so far this year alone (Gun Violence Archive). You think my stats are made up and shit?? NBC News had similar info : More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 2:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Just an interesting point for this discussion: Here in Australia, where we have strict laws about guns, there is a push on for most classes of guns to be kept in gun clubs rather than at the owner's house. Obviously, exceptions such as farmers who need their weapons for pest control will be allowed. But apart from those cases where there is a practical need for weapons on site, the idea being pushed is that there is no place for guns in homes. While this will no doubt cause some gun nuts apoplexy, there is a lot of public sympathy for this move and it may succeed. FWIW, I hope it comes to fruition. Australia is generally low crime, with a tiny murder rate compared to the US, and low stats generally on gun crimes. So the argument that householders need guns to protect themselves doesn't carry much weight here. This illustrates perfectly the gap between the gun debates in the US and the discussion in saner places. Yes, but Aus has never had a gun culture like the USA's. I mean, what happened in Port Arthur in 1996 in Aus caused a shock that permeated society and led to John Howard's sweeping anti-gun measure in just twelve days. In less time than that, this thread has kicked off, and it's all about the 2nd Amendment and poor harassed gun-owners. I mean, really, it's almost astonishing to a non-American: 59 people killed in Las Vegas, plus 500 odd injured. As against that - 35 killed in Port Arthur; fewer than 30 injuries. But, already, apparently, the crucial issue, front and centre, is not that of the dead 59 people, or the 500 injured - it's that of gun owners and their rights and freedoms. Screw your right and freedom to go to a gig and watch some music free of the fear that some lunatic might just take a fancy to blowing your brains out with one or more of his many lovingly caressed firearms.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 2:59:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 ...But people focus on guns, why? Because guns can be controlled or banned. Because guns are the most prolific, most common, easiest to obtain. And also because although guns are available in most other OECD countries (and citizens can legally own them), only in the USA where there is a gun culture do all these gun-related deaths occur in such massive numbers. Only in the USA are there regular mass shootings. That's why the rest of the world focus on guns in the US.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 3:23:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Remember that you have already admitted that the problem is people and that when you have people who want to kill they will find another weapon if guns were banned. No other weapon kills from over 100 yards. Easy access to guns are the root of the problem in the US. Yes, they will use another weapon but it won't be anywhere near as deadly as a gun. Bombs have killed more in an attack than guns. Fire has killed more in a single attack than guns. This is the first time an attack from 1900 yds has taken place wit a gun so that is not relevant. A knife is invincible once you disarm the potential victims. The problem is more gangs than anything else . BTW McVeigh was 100 yds from his victims with his bomb. How many bomb attacks do you get compared to gun deaths?? Maybe more die in a single bomb attack compared to a single gun attack. But when compared to the sheer number of gun attacks compared to bombs, the numbers are stupidly ridiculous. Picking out stupid comparisons is apples to oranges; it's senseless. There are almost 12,000 gun deaths in the US so far this year alone (Gun Violence Archive). You think my stats are made up and shit?? NBC News had similar info : More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars — Combined. Your mindset is warped. In DC the murder rate doubled when they banned gun. Not from an increase of gun deaths from imported guns from other states but because it was now safe to kill with knives and clubs. We have covered this before and you stated that since they couldn't get guns they used other weapons. My point exactly. The problem isn't guns, it is the drug fuled gangs that don't value human life. The plases with these gangs have high crime rates , the places witout them have low crime rates even if they have more guns than people. NBC ignores this fact just like you do. All getting rid of gun will do is push people to more deadly things like bombs.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 4:44:37 PM)
Bama, these people insist guns cause violence. Take away the guns, the violence goes away. Of course, it is the fault of the 187 million gun owners who dont go out and shoot up a concert, or drive by someone's house in south central LA because it is happening, so we need to be punished. They seem to feel that gun owners as a whole cannot be trusted to be responsible, law abiding citizens. Because we want guns, own guns, and use guns, we are just mass shooters waiting for a good excuse and a lot of people to shoot at.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 4:54:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Bama, these people insist guns cause violence. Take away the guns, the violence goes away. Of course, it is the fault of the 187 million gun owners who dont go out and shoot up a concert, or drive by someone's house in south central LA because it is happening, so we need to be punished. They seem to feel that gun owners as a whole cannot be trusted to be responsible, law abiding citizens. Because we want guns, own guns, and use guns, we are just mass shooters waiting for a good excuse and a lot of people to shoot at. It is almost like they think that guns want to kill. That the guns then overwhelm the will of the owners. They force otherwise decent people to kill. My feeling is that while they may have less will power than an inanimate object but I and the vast majority of gun owners have more will than said inanimate object. Remember it isn't, according to them that people get guns because they want to kill, it is that they want to kill because they have guns.

AtUrCervix -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 5:18:46 PM)
FR.... It's time we stop thinking that guns are a solution.... NOT ALL guns are a solution. Guns...are a solution...but........repeaters....not.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/8/2017 5:21:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix FR.... It's time we stop thinking that guns are a solution.... NOT ALL guns are a solution. Guns...are a solution...but........repeaters....not. It is time we stop thinking that guns are the problem. Evil people are.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02