So you don't believe guns should be allowed on public property either?Originally Posted by Sooner5030
If not, illogical argument.
|
|
So you don't believe guns should be allowed on public property either?
If not, illogical argument.
Completely agree with that as well.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
15 of the 25 worst m**** shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
Link http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/...past-50-years/
Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
That doesn’t include Friday’s shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. The AP put the early reported death toll at 27, which would make it the second-deadliest m**** shooting in US history.
more at the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/
He's offering false hope.
They wrote the amendment with the desire for the people to be able to keep the govt in check. In the grand scheme of things an "ar" is rather primitive so if they take that away (they can't and won't) then we as a free people are ****ed.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Looks like we are making progress. We should keep doing what we are doing.
15 of the 25 worst m**** shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
Link http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/...past-50-years/
Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
That doesn’t include Friday’s shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. The AP put the early reported death toll at 27, which would make it the second-deadliest m**** shooting in US history.
more at the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/
Have you ever offered false hope? Have you ever tried to comfort someone, perhaps a family member who was extremely ill by telling them they would be okay?
Look at USAO's charts. Why should we change when things are getting better. The shooting in CT is terrible but it has been happening at a higher rate for many years and those incidents are on the decline.
If you arent just trolling, and you feel those rates as they are acceptable thats just sad. Click and read the link at the bottom of that post
I will read the article but looking at your chart the number of deaths has been cut in half over the last 30 years. That didn't happen because of magic. Controlling weapons will not keep them from being available to the people of the US.
Some of you clowns amaze me.
I'm definitely against more gun control, but some of you are so blinded by anti-obamaism that no matter what he says you will try to twist it into something you disagree with.
Like some of you probably could not function if you couldn't hate that man.
Baffles the **** out of me.
The following users like this post: OUMallen
Really reaching...
Precisely the spirit of the amendment. However, the gun grabbing crowd would love the citizenry to defend themselves with rocks and cacti.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Incorrect. Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison then come back and discuss intelligently.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Gun owners conserve many lives and freedoms. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
That's nice. He works for us and the constitution is his marching orders. He will do nothing.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
And they also destroy lives and freedoms as well. And you're not sorry for anything, remember, you're the self admitted selfish one.
I'm expecting him to change it so he can run again.
I know several responsible gun owners who have not destroyed a single thing other than paper and gl****. I personally have nothing to be sorry for. What else you got?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
So does football:
* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.(6)
* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Ignorance.
Just common sense. No one ever said all gun owners were irresponsible or responsible for that matter. What I do know is that if there were absolutely no guns the voids in life would be found in unused hospital beds, less crowded morgues and funeral homes and fewer cemetary plots being dug for the dearly beloved, but this you could care less about. Sacrifices are a necessary component of life.
And the United States would never have existed, slavery never abolished, etc., etc.
Wow. But you can't undo the invention of the gun. They are here and if they were illegal they would still be here. Such an ignorant point.
Are you suggesting that football was created to kill people? If so, then why do they wear protective gearing. And would you please stop carrying sand into the house from the sandbox.
Are you kidding me. This point brings infinitely more rep to the table than your "if guns didn't exist" argument.
Do you understand the level of violence before guns? The romans, Alexander the great, Attila the hun, the crusades, the Persians. Oh wait those where all guns fault as well. I am sure there were plenty of voided hospital beds back then, right?
Your argument is a boat made out of a screen door. You're out of your league Donnie.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
It really doesn't though. His point is useless, but the football argument is too.
It's along the lines of saying weed should be legal because cigarettes and alcohol are, when they really serve no purpose in the debate at all.
Are you familiar w/the status quo? The relevance of this word applies to those who have had the same exact mantra year after year and because this is so then there is no starting point to begin from. If you were an alcoholic but you failed to realize it then how could you possibly help yourself. How? The obvious answer is you wouldn't be able to and the very same thing applies to guns. You and your kind said the very same thing last year, five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago and so on and in this period of doing nothing and failing to recognize the symptoms there cannot and will not be any possible affective change to occur. Everyone who shares your beliefs wants the status quo to continue and thus there is no starting point to begin from. It's called procrastination. A person can call the fire department as soon as they smell smoke or they can wait till there's nothing left but cinders.
Countries have a right to be able to defend themselves from rogue countries so there would obviously be guns or other forms of weapons.
Your examples cite primarily war mongering nations being at odds as opposed to the safety and welfare of little Stevie chomping at the bit for the finger painting session to commence.
Good thing we are not accepting the status quo. Look at the data. Gun violence is in the decline. How can you ignore that. It's not just minimal either. Cut in half in the last 30 years.
Everyone is up in arms because kids were killed. Schools have to be protected so we can save our children. If its about the kids then why stop with guns. Especially when their is a bigger killer out there of children.
prolly need to start building schools next door to police stations...
Can't get much closer in Luther. So are we good?
You use the word 'if,' but you don't recognize its meaning when used by others.
In the history of man there has always been extreme violence. But I am sure it has always been the weapons fault, whether it be swords, bow/arrow, or firearms. Correct?
If you were the target of a drive by would you rather take your chances by being shot at w/a gun or a bow and arrow?
Because one example is acted upon against the will of the child or the parent, while the other is a choice. It's a slippery slope argument and serves no purpose in this debate.
Surprise, surprise. Once again you do not answer the question.
Since you seem to like to play childish games I will close with this. I have many firearms and they are everything that you have nightmares about. You know that one where the evil ****ault rifle with arms, legs, and jagged teeth is chasing you? Yep, I have that exact model. All your crying and teeth gnashing will not change that. Ultimately, I have already won. Oh the sweet taste of victory.
The following users like this post: eyeballjr
The question I would REALLY like answered is IF they were to outlaw the weapons we own and expect us to turn them in.. how to you answer the economic impact? I wouldnt be one of those people that would say "over my dead body" I would say "here is how much I paid for this ****.. I hope you plan to compensate."
i want brutha to come knock on my door and try to take them.....that would be compensation enuf...
It's never going to happen. Some weapons may start to be restricted for future sale but the government knows that it would be one of the ugliest and deadliest times in history if they forced people to give up their guns.
And if I'm standing there with a group of other people and one of them gets hit with the arrow, then we must ban bow and arrows right? And if those are banned and people start killing each other with knives, then those must be banned. And then when people start killing each other with hammers, then those must be banned. And then when all the tools that can be used to kill are banned to the satisfaction of those who fear everything and people start killing with their bare hands, will we start cutting off peoples hands?
See, the problem isn't the tool, it's the person. If someone is determined to kill as many people as possible for whatever reason, they will do it whether it be with a gun, a knife, a car, a bomb, poisoning, a canister of gasoline and a match, etc. The solution isn't banning this or that. It's finding the reasons as to what drives people to commit m**** murders, which is almost always based in mental illness. Fix the mental health care system to ensure that these kind of people get help or can be committed to keep them away from harming other people will do more than banning certain guns ever will.
And sadly, despite the promises of safety that our government uses to take away our liberties, we will never be completely safe. People will still kill, m**** murders will still happen. But if people have weapons, then at least we have a fighting chance to survive. A gun in that school with someone trained to use it, whether it be the principal, a teacher, a security guard or a police officer, etc., it would have given those kids and those adults all a fighting chance to survive. You cannot deny that fact.
::Facepalm
The citizenry cannot put up any meaningful resistance to the federal government at this point, with or without semi-autos.
The Second Amendment has already been defeated.
Fail. This argument has already been obliterated.
Link me to it. I'd love to see how the citizenry of the US could possibly overthrow violently our current federal government.
If anything, the argument is about whether we can effectively resist our state and local authorities. But with the militarization of local police force over the past couple of decades, that would be pretty tough too.
The Second Amendment was written hundreds of years ago. The Founding Fathers couldn't imagine what would come to p**** with technology. We need to have a realistic conversation about how we need to move forward.
How? The government has the bombs that can pretty much do things no citizens can really come up with to mount a defense. The constitution specifically had the 2nd amendment for 2 reasons to defend against others that may harm you and to defend against government.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
