Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You're lying now. If there were so many, you would have no problem citing a few examples.Name them. Provide evidence.OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.I said that I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. If you are equating lawless gun-toting anarchists with armed citizens, that's on you.
And yet some here apparently are.
Oh please, USMB is full of such people. Surely you have read their posts.
Stop lying, Leftists!
Lol so what going to be staying thereYou're lying now. If there were so many, you would have no problem citing a few examples.Name them. Provide evidence.OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.
And yet some here apparently are.
Oh please, USMB is full of such people. Surely you have read their posts.
Stop lying, Leftists!
If you haven't noticed the anarchists posting here, that's your problem, not mine. The fact of the matter is that anyone who is so paranoid about where they live that they have to arm themselves for protection is probably not living in a great place.
Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!
Does the second amendment allow an individual to purchase a fully functional and armed M1 Abrams tank? Or a Mark IV nuclear weapon? No? So you admit that there are limitations to the second amendment.
OK, why can NYC prevent me from carrying a simple revolver unless I get their approval and blessing? How is that allowed under the 2nd amendment?
We are not talking tanks or bazookas. Why can NYC tell me I can't walk around the streets with a concealed revolver unless they "let" me?
Why can't they?
Because the 2nd amendment you fucking dullard.
Exactly.
'gun violence death rate' is a false and pointless stat. I dont care how you die - gun hammer or knife - you are just as dead. Does banning guns decrease homicides:Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.
Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?
The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..
The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.
It continues to take a toll primarily of black and Mexican gangster lives. When has Obama ever seriously addressed the problem in Chicago, his old riding? He doesn't give a damn about black gangsters killing one another, nor do the democrats. They take the same attitude as the Mexican government regarding the cartel war along our southern border that's claimed at least 70,000 lives in six years: "Let them kill each, they're drug cartel criminals. They don't matter."
Oh, you mean where Chicago has cut its gun violence death rate by more than half since 1994?
As for Mexico, are you suggesting that we invade Mexico to rid it of its cartels? Good luck with that.
[
I think you know nothing about me.
No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.
Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?
The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.
You are grasping at straws. They never excluded innovations for better firearms. That is a lame argument.
The constitution does, in fact, allow for restrictions on the types of weapons allowed. Ask SCOTUS.
[
If you haven't noticed the anarchists posting here, that's your problem, not mine. The fact of the matter is that anyone who is so paranoid about where they live that they have to arm themselves for protection is probably not living in a great place.
Does the second amendment allow an individual to purchase a fully functional and armed M1 Abrams tank? Or a Mark IV nuclear weapon? No? So you admit that there are limitations to the second amendment.
OK, why can NYC prevent me from carrying a simple revolver unless I get their approval and blessing? How is that allowed under the 2nd amendment?
We are not talking tanks or bazookas. Why can NYC tell me I can't walk around the streets with a concealed revolver unless they "let" me?
Why can't they?
Because the 2nd amendment you fucking dullard.
Exactly.
And yet they still do. and the courts allow it. Here's an exercise, I'll consider your gun grabbing bullshit when you support me getting even my basic firearm rights back in progressive shitholes like NYC.
OK, why can NYC prevent me from carrying a simple revolver unless I get their approval and blessing? How is that allowed under the 2nd amendment?
We are not talking tanks or bazookas. Why can NYC tell me I can't walk around the streets with a concealed revolver unless they "let" me?
Why can't they?
Because the 2nd amendment you fucking dullard.
Exactly.
And yet they still do. and the courts allow it. Here's an exercise, I'll consider your gun grabbing bullshit when you support me getting even my basic firearm rights back in progressive shitholes like NYC.
So you want me to help you provide weapons in New York so more people can die? You're on your own, pal.
'gun violence death rate' is a false and pointless stat. I dont care how you die - gun hammer or knife - you are just as dead. Does banning guns decrease homicides:Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?
The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..
The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.
It continues to take a toll primarily of black and Mexican gangster lives. When has Obama ever seriously addressed the problem in Chicago, his old riding? He doesn't give a damn about black gangsters killing one another, nor do the democrats. They take the same attitude as the Mexican government regarding the cartel war along our southern border that's claimed at least 70,000 lives in six years: "Let them kill each, they're drug cartel criminals. They don't matter."
Oh, you mean where Chicago has cut its gun violence death rate by more than half since 1994?
As for Mexico, are you suggesting that we invade Mexico to rid it of its cartels? Good luck with that.
Doesn't look like it does anything. I will note that your chart does not mention anything at all about the fact that the 90 were VERY violent and the entire nation has been on a down trend.
Your inability to support your point is noted.Name them. Provide evidence.OK thats a red herring fallacy. No one here is proposing to be a lawless gun toting anarchist.Notjing false there. You claimed you were scared of armed citizens. I didnt claim that.
I said that I fear the U.S. could fall victim to lawless gun-toting anarchists. If you are equating lawless gun-toting anarchists with armed citizens, that's on you.
And yet some here apparently are.
Oh please, USMB is full of such people. Surely you have read their posts.
That's completely wrong.No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.Some nut shoots 6 people and the lefties want a law banning magazines with more than 5 bullets. Some nut shoots 7 people and they want a ban on magazines with more than 6 bullets. Shoot 10 and the left responds with a ban of 10 bullet magazines. Always chasing the irrelevant circumstances of gun violence instead of addressing the real causes.
Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?
The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.
Wrong, good lord not another clueless gun hater...many of the arms of the day back then were quite nasty weapons and are currently illegal. You dumb ass gun haters really should avoid discussing this topic in public its embarrassing.
And very inaccurate, and none of them could wreak the carnage a modern legal assault rifle can do.
[
I think you know nothing about me.
I know you are an anti gun nut Moon Bat from the garbage you have posted on here.
I am a NRA certified Firearms Instructor and certified Chief Range Officer. I train people on firearms including qualifying LEOs. I am pretty well ingrained in the firearms community. I think I understand the NRA and my fellow firearm owners a lot better than you do based upon what I have seen you post on this forum.
Some people believe Aryan Nations is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So what?Because there is no arguing with NRA radicals.
There is no arguing with Libtard anti gun nuts.
Like the example in the article they are always unreasonable.
They are so unreasonable that they think a grassroots organization like the NRA that was created to assure a Constitutional right is bad. You can't reason with that kind of stupidity.
Yes, I do believe that the NRA is a terrible organization. And I am not alone in this assessment.
No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.Would you rather see a ban on gun sales altogether?
The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.
You are grasping at straws. They never excluded innovations for better firearms. That is a lame argument.
The constitution does, in fact, allow for restrictions on the types of weapons allowed. Ask SCOTUS.
The Constitution has been ignored by this President since the day he entered office. That should be your focus. Not this. Americans are entitled to 2nd Amendment rights and are abiding by the Constitution - we need a President that will do the same.
I'd bet the Treasury you are completely wrong.'gun violence death rate' is a false and pointless stat. I dont care how you die - gun hammer or knife - you are just as dead. Does banning guns decrease homicides:The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..
The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.
It continues to take a toll primarily of black and Mexican gangster lives. When has Obama ever seriously addressed the problem in Chicago, his old riding? He doesn't give a damn about black gangsters killing one another, nor do the democrats. They take the same attitude as the Mexican government regarding the cartel war along our southern border that's claimed at least 70,000 lives in six years: "Let them kill each, they're drug cartel criminals. They don't matter."
Oh, you mean where Chicago has cut its gun violence death rate by more than half since 1994?
As for Mexico, are you suggesting that we invade Mexico to rid it of its cartels? Good luck with that.
Doesn't look like it does anything. I will note that your chart does not mention anything at all about the fact that the 90 were VERY violent and the entire nation has been on a down trend.
We don't know if banning all guns would significantly reduce the homicide rate because as a nation we've never tried it. But I'd bet the bank that it would.
Why can't they?
Because the 2nd amendment you fucking dullard.
Exactly.
And yet they still do. and the courts allow it. Here's an exercise, I'll consider your gun grabbing bullshit when you support me getting even my basic firearm rights back in progressive shitholes like NYC.
So you want me to help you provide weapons in New York so more people can die? You're on your own, pal.
Why would people die if I were permitted, as is my right, to carry a firearm?
'gun violence death rate' is a false and pointless stat. I dont care how you die - gun hammer or knife - you are just as dead. Does banning guns decrease homicides:The far left wants that, the side you support and voted for twice..
The rampant possession of firearms in this country has taken, and continues to take a terrible toll in lives. Now, unless you can come up with a viable solution that addresses that toll, I will continue to hold that we need to get rid of them altogether. But hey, that's just me.
It continues to take a toll primarily of black and Mexican gangster lives. When has Obama ever seriously addressed the problem in Chicago, his old riding? He doesn't give a damn about black gangsters killing one another, nor do the democrats. They take the same attitude as the Mexican government regarding the cartel war along our southern border that's claimed at least 70,000 lives in six years: "Let them kill each, they're drug cartel criminals. They don't matter."
Oh, you mean where Chicago has cut its gun violence death rate by more than half since 1994?
As for Mexico, are you suggesting that we invade Mexico to rid it of its cartels? Good luck with that.
Doesn't look like it does anything. I will note that your chart does not mention anything at all about the fact that the 90 were VERY violent and the entire nation has been on a down trend.
We don't know if banning all guns would significantly reduce the homicide rate because as a nation we've never tried it. But I'd bet the bank that it would.
Because the 2nd amendment you fucking dullard.
Exactly.
And yet they still do. and the courts allow it. Here's an exercise, I'll consider your gun grabbing bullshit when you support me getting even my basic firearm rights back in progressive shitholes like NYC.
So you want me to help you provide weapons in New York so more people can die? You're on your own, pal.
Why would people die if I were permitted, as is my right, to carry a firearm?
If it is your right, why aren't you already carrying one?
Even were that true? Don't you mean - you already know it is true? Do not evade the real issues of where the Constitution is being violated. You and I both know that were the founding fathers here today they would tell Americans that the firearms they possess are not a problem. So drop it. You have nothing here and you know it.No, I'd rather see us abide by the Constitution.
The constitution did not specify what constitutes "arms". The "arms" of the day was a musket and a saber. If you want to own a musket or a saber, have at it.
You are grasping at straws. They never excluded innovations for better firearms. That is a lame argument.
The constitution does, in fact, allow for restrictions on the types of weapons allowed. Ask SCOTUS.
The Constitution has been ignored by this President since the day he entered office. That should be your focus. Not this. Americans are entitled to 2nd Amendment rights and are abiding by the Constitution - we need a President that will do the same.
Even were that true, it is a non-sequitur. Try again.
