100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: WHY GUN CONTROL IS BAD | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
lol.. Canadians have this "holier than tho" attitude... i guess they think that there was no Indians in Canada, only in America... 
both countries displaced and murdered the natives, but the Canadians don't seem to remember that... Moe, W2, Lonely ... Come on guys Seriously, slaves? Indians? Stepping In? This thread is about gun control and how things need to change and i'm not seeing anything you wrote address the real issue. That's a American Thang I've dealt on here before... Bob & weave eh? it's annoying You're way doesn't work! Stand all proud... wait for the boogyman government to come get you, while your own blood, pucks you up... it's ridiculous even disregarding Jeanne's questionable hysteria ....ummm.... I mean history lesson....if our government or any of the governments she named, wants to exterminate you....a couple glocks and Winchesters from that there kitchen cabinet ain't gonna stop 'em hell folks they bombed a daggone hood in philly where I grew up all the sat. night specials hidden under matresses in the ghetto didn't stop 'em on that day...lol irrespective of your opinion on gun control....the US Govt does not need gun control ...if they comin' they comin as one big army gun control is for people like me who'd like to see my children safe in their school where no "crazzzzie azzholes who got mama's gun cuz that woman be half crazy too" is gonna come shoot up the classroom cus they be some CRAZY SHYTE....nuff said Good point, except for the fact that the government wouldn't come in guns a blazin like you mentioned. It's called incrementalism. Scenario most folks are talking about would involve Martial Law type situations where civilians mount a defense. At first citizens would be outgunned until family members of soldiers were involved. Then most of the U.S. Military would turn on the powers that be. Random fact... In general military leadership actually looks down on our special forces (in all branches). This (i would assume) is because they are the first ones to question their orders. (Quite commonly disobeying them if they go against morals or ideals.) You don't hear that very often, but I've seen it. Point is, when a real conflict breaks out, most of those that make us as powerful as we are, will disband and join the people, starting with our most highly trained operatives. The glock's, Ak's, and AR's only give the citizens the initial ground. go find urself a bunker...lol from what I can see on here there much paranoia and no reason and yes the government could come as one big army. they did in philadelphia - it has already happened so don;t tell me what they could NOT do. they are not going increment anyone who obeys the law. that 's why this is so much paranoia. and where the advocates lose the reasoned classes of people. no one should be against reasonable controls. the only ones who would be against reasonable laws are nuts, thugs, and the criminally insane. so you lose people there. the gov't does not want to take your hunting rifle or my glock, but I doubt some of these folks could pass a mental health assessment to own one.....that should be required - this paranoia is crazy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They haven't done much in the way of taking guns away from gang-bangers. Seems that would be a priority. Oops! I forgot! Libs are at the helm! Their priorities are 180 out of those of sane folks. Easier and safer to snatch, love that word  , guns from citizens.
Snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They haven't done much in the way of taking guns away from gang-bangers. Seems that would be a priority. Oops! I forgot! Libs are at the helm! Their priorities are 180 out of those of sane folks. Easier and safer to snatch, love that word , guns from citizens.
Snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...snatch...
I agree...let them pass laws that only apply to criminal element.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Wed 08/28/13 01:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence And I know some will complain the link is from Breitbart and call the site right wing well i couldnt find the story on anything other than what would be called s right wing site so here is the PDF from Harvard if you want to read the whole thing. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sweetestgirl11
You should not call people "paranoid." Laws restricting law abiding citizens from owning (and keeping) the guns they already have is tantamount to gun confiscation because if they do ever get around to enforcing some of these laws, they turn law abiding gun owners into criminals because the new laws make their guns illegal. Lawmakers are on a soapbox riding on the backs of slaughtered children passing gun control laws left and right, when the laws we have are not being enforced. It is all a bunch of yack yack yack. Once the laws are passed, they will pick and chose who they will use them against because they don't have enough man power or money to enforce all the laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence And I know some will complain the link is from Breitbart and call the site right wing well i couldnt find the story on anything other than what would be called s right wing site so here is the PDF from Harvard if you want to read the whole thing. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Lot of interesting information in those 44 pages! 
|
|
|
|
|
