Guns, Guns, Guns Everywhere.., But...,

[bigrebnc1775]

yet, why do liberals hate them so much ?

guns are an inanimate object, a tool, no different than a hammer or saw, they too can cause great harm if not used properly.


so..., please, if there is just one liberal here on this forum who can read, write and speak intelligently, intellectually, logically, and sanely, PLEASE, tell us responsible gun owners who are defenders of our Constitutional rights whom you folks lovingly call, "nutters".., we are no more "nutters" than irrational liberals who fly off the handle and blame a gun for the stupidity of one or more persons.

one last thing libs, 98% of us gun owners do NOT own and most likely never will own an "ASSAULT RIFLE" do you know why ?

i will not tell you why now as i wish to read your replies first.., then i will explain why and what exactly an "Assault Rifle" is...., OK ??

see.., i did not insult or call anyone names, can you do the same ? thank you all for reading and replying to this post

regards,
WM

So guns are tools, just like a hammer or saw? The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails to join pieces of wood. The purpose of a saw is to cut materials. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun is a tool where the proper use results in death. You can't say the same about the proper use of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver.

Guns are tools and yes they are only designed to kill for lawful purposes. A person cannot be legally deprived to use their weapons in a legal manner. When they have been used illegally a person loses their rights to those tools.

Wrong.

An individual can be designated a prohibited person absent the illegal use of a gun.

It is perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment to prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Your ignorance shines through
"Guns are tools and yes they are only designed to kill for lawful purposes. A person cannot be legally deprived to use their weapons in a legal manner. When they have been used illegally a person loses their rights to those tools."
Where in the hell did you come up justifying what you wrote saying this post was wrong? When I said legally use felons and incompetent people cannot legally use a firearm.
STOP PULLING SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS TO SOUND IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW YOU JUST SOUND IGNORANT.

 

[candycorn]

yet, why do liberals hate them so much ?

guns are an inanimate object, a tool, no different than a hammer or saw, they too can cause great harm if not used properly.


so..., please, if there is just one liberal here on this forum who can read, write and speak intelligently, intellectually, logically, and sanely, PLEASE, tell us responsible gun owners who are defenders of our Constitutional rights whom you folks lovingly call, "nutters".., we are no more "nutters" than irrational liberals who fly off the handle and blame a gun for the stupidity of one or more persons.

one last thing libs, 98% of us gun owners do NOT own and most likely never will own an "ASSAULT RIFLE" do you know why ?

i will not tell you why now as i wish to read your replies first.., then i will explain why and what exactly an "Assault Rifle" is...., OK ??

see.., i did not insult or call anyone names, can you do the same ? thank you all for reading and replying to this post

regards,
WM

So guns are tools, just like a hammer or saw? The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails to join pieces of wood. The purpose of a saw is to cut materials. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun is a tool where the proper use results in death. You can't say the same about the proper use of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver.

Guns are tools and yes they are only designed to kill for lawful purposes. A person cannot be legally deprived to use their weapons in a legal manner. When they have been used illegally a person loses their rights to those tools.

Wrong.

An individual can be designated a prohibited person absent the illegal use of a gun.

It is perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment to prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Just like there are limits on free speech.

Government imposes those limits to protect society.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Got buttercup Russians are such great fighters that they submitted to dictators

We no must be good fighter to kick the Amerca ass. Is easy even for the Finnland to make America marine look like baby crying:

That's why you Russians lived in fear of dictators you're such great fighters lol Should I address you as Pussianie?

And here my cousin kicking more America pussy boy

yawn

Still another American Navy Seal getting his ass handed to him. Jesus Ameicans are such pussies! LOL!

Comrade you would piss your pants

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yet, why do liberals hate them so much ?

guns are an inanimate object, a tool, no different than a hammer or saw, they too can cause great harm if not used properly.


so..., please, if there is just one liberal here on this forum who can read, write and speak intelligently, intellectually, logically, and sanely, PLEASE, tell us responsible gun owners who are defenders of our Constitutional rights whom you folks lovingly call, "nutters".., we are no more "nutters" than irrational liberals who fly off the handle and blame a gun for the stupidity of one or more persons.

one last thing libs, 98% of us gun owners do NOT own and most likely never will own an "ASSAULT RIFLE" do you know why ?

i will not tell you why now as i wish to read your replies first.., then i will explain why and what exactly an "Assault Rifle" is...., OK ??

see.., i did not insult or call anyone names, can you do the same ? thank you all for reading and replying to this post

regards,
WM

So guns are tools, just like a hammer or saw? The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails to join pieces of wood. The purpose of a saw is to cut materials. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun is a tool where the proper use results in death. You can't say the same about the proper use of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver.

Guns are tools and yes they are only designed to kill for lawful purposes. A person cannot be legally deprived to use their weapons in a legal manner. When they have been used illegally a person loses their rights to those tools.

Wrong.

An individual can be designated a prohibited person absent the illegal use of a gun.

It is perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment to prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Just like there are limits on free speech.

Government imposes those limits to protect society.

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From generations of ....... experience, statistics and concern we ought not to allow Americans to have guns.

Europeans are indeed pathetic dumbed down serfs

1. Kindergarten shootings

2. Primary school shootings

3. Junior High shootings

4. High school shootings

5. College shootings

6. University shootings

7. Post Office shootings

8. Church shootings

9. Road Rage shootings

10. Drive-by shootings

11. Shopping Mall shootings

12. Shooting spouse instead of divorce

13. Shooting spouse to collect insurance money

14. Shooting spouse to get child custody


* All of them perpetrated by domestics (Americans murdering other Americans).

* How many of each of them have you had?

* We haven't had a single one of those in my country.

Who is "pathetic dumbed down"?

Teach your kids well

Yeah.

View attachment 278092

caps lock was own not going back to rewrite the post
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING KILLED IN THOSE PLACES AND BE DISARMED AND NOT HAVE A GUN AND KILLED IN YOUR HOME BY HOME INVADERS?

Strawman fallacy.

No one is advocating that citizens be denied possessing firearms for self-defense – in or outside of the home.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From generations of ....... experience, statistics and concern we ought not to allow Americans to have guns.

Europeans are indeed pathetic dumbed down serfs

1. Kindergarten shootings

2. Primary school shootings

3. Junior High shootings

4. High school shootings

5. College shootings

6. University shootings

7. Post Office shootings

8. Church shootings

9. Road Rage shootings

10. Drive-by shootings

11. Shopping Mall shootings

12. Shooting spouse instead of divorce

13. Shooting spouse to collect insurance money

14. Shooting spouse to get child custody


* All of them perpetrated by domestics (Americans murdering other Americans).

* How many of each of them have you had?

* We haven't had a single one of those in my country.

Who is "pathetic dumbed down"?

Teach your kids well

Yeah.

View attachment 278092

caps lock was own not going back to rewrite the post
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING KILLED IN THOSE PLACES AND BE DISARMED AND NOT HAVE A GUN AND KILLED IN YOUR HOME BY HOME INVADERS?

Strawman fallacy.

No one is advocating that citizens be denied possessing firearms for self-defense – in or outside of the home.

That's not a straw man fallacy that's the reality that you are devoid of.

 

[GLASNOST]

Your post always shows your ignorant side you never fail at doing that.

Your irrational fear prevails with your TDS influenced post. People kill with or without a gun it weakens your argument when you ignore other deaths

Comrade you would piss your pants

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

It is time for you to shut off your mother's computer, wash yourself off in the shower, and go to bed to lick your wounds. You've been thoroughly beaten today.

 

[candycorn]

yet, why do liberals hate them so much ?

guns are an inanimate object, a tool, no different than a hammer or saw, they too can cause great harm if not used properly.


so..., please, if there is just one liberal here on this forum who can read, write and speak intelligently, intellectually, logically, and sanely, PLEASE, tell us responsible gun owners who are defenders of our Constitutional rights whom you folks lovingly call, "nutters".., we are no more "nutters" than irrational liberals who fly off the handle and blame a gun for the stupidity of one or more persons.

one last thing libs, 98% of us gun owners do NOT own and most likely never will own an "ASSAULT RIFLE" do you know why ?

i will not tell you why now as i wish to read your replies first.., then i will explain why and what exactly an "Assault Rifle" is...., OK ??

see.., i did not insult or call anyone names, can you do the same ? thank you all for reading and replying to this post

regards,
WM

So guns are tools, just like a hammer or saw? The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails to join pieces of wood. The purpose of a saw is to cut materials. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun is a tool where the proper use results in death. You can't say the same about the proper use of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver.

Guns are tools and yes they are only designed to kill for lawful purposes. A person cannot be legally deprived to use their weapons in a legal manner. When they have been used illegally a person loses their rights to those tools.

Wrong.

An individual can be designated a prohibited person absent the illegal use of a gun.

It is perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment to prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Just like there are limits on free speech.

Government imposes those limits to protect society.

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So guns are tools, just like a hammer or saw? The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails to join pieces of wood. The purpose of a saw is to cut materials. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun is a tool where the proper use results in death. You can't say the same about the proper use of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver.

Guns are tools and yes they are only designed to kill for lawful purposes. A person cannot be legally deprived to use their weapons in a legal manner. When they have been used illegally a person loses their rights to those tools.

Wrong.

An individual can be designated a prohibited person absent the illegal use of a gun.

It is perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment to prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Just like there are limits on free speech.

Government imposes those limits to protect society.

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your post always shows your ignorant side you never fail at doing that.

Your irrational fear prevails with your TDS influenced post. People kill with or without a gun it weakens your argument when you ignore other deaths

Comrade you would piss your pants

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

It is time for you to shut off your mother's computer, wash yourself off in the shower, and go to bed to lick your wounds. You've been thoroughly beaten today.

View attachment 278136

I see your vagina bleeding. like with all Pussianies surrender was inevitable

 

[candycorn]

Guns are tools and yes they are only designed to kill for lawful purposes. A person cannot be legally deprived to use their weapons in a legal manner. When they have been used illegally a person loses their rights to those tools.

Wrong.

An individual can be designated a prohibited person absent the illegal use of a gun.

It is perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment to prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Just like there are limits on free speech.

Government imposes those limits to protect society.

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong.

An individual can be designated a prohibited person absent the illegal use of a gun.

It is perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment to prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.

Just like there are limits on free speech.

Government imposes those limits to protect society.

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

you can't comprehend because you lack the ability to comprehend
It's simple
You can restrict privileges such as driving
FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT

 

[candycorn]

Just like there are limits on free speech.

Government imposes those limits to protect society.

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

you can't comprehend because you lack the ability to comprehend
It's simple
You can restrict privileges such as driving
FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT

Free speech is a right as well.
Do you have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? No.
Do you have the right to divulge state secrets? No.
Do you have the right to publish troop movements during wartime? No.

Your constitutional rights have limits.

Sorry to ruin your day with facts….actually that’s a lie. I’m not the least bit sorry. LOL

 

[Dan Stubbs]

yet, why do liberals hate them so much ?

guns are an inanimate object, a tool, no different than a hammer or saw, they too can cause great harm if not used properly.


so..., please, if there is just one liberal here on this forum who can read, write and speak intelligently, intellectually, logically, and sanely, PLEASE, tell us responsible gun owners who are defenders of our Constitutional rights whom you folks lovingly call, "nutters".., we are no more "nutters" than irrational liberals who fly off the handle and blame a gun for the stupidity of one or more persons.

one last thing libs, 98% of us gun owners do NOT own and most likely never will own an "ASSAULT RIFLE" do you know why ?

i will not tell you why now as i wish to read your replies first.., then i will explain why and what exactly an "Assault Rifle" is...., OK ??

see.., i did not insult or call anyone names, can you do the same ? thank you all for reading and replying to this post

regards,
WM

So guns are tools, just like a hammer or saw? The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails to join pieces of wood. The purpose of a saw is to cut materials. The purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun is a tool where the proper use results in death. You can't say the same about the proper use of a hammer, saw, or screwdriver.

You have lived a very sheltered life. All of the tools you named have been used to kill people...LOL now I understand the word Dumbasses........can't spell it yet but you get the idea.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

you can't comprehend because you lack the ability to comprehend
It's simple
You can restrict privileges such as driving
FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT

Free speech is a right as well.
Do you have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? No.
Do you have the right to divulge state secrets? No.
Do you have the right to publish troop movements during wartime? No.

Your constitutional rights have limits.

Sorry to ruin your day with facts….actually that’s a lie. I’m not the least bit sorry. LOL

Don't like to disagree but I think Hilly did most of the stuff you listed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

you can't comprehend because you lack the ability to comprehend
It's simple
You can restrict privileges such as driving
FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT

Free speech is a right as well.
Do you have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? No.
Do you have the right to divulge state secrets? No.
Do you have the right to publish troop movements during wartime? No.

Your constitutional rights have limits.

Sorry to ruin your day with facts….actually that’s a lie. I’m not the least bit sorry. LOL

shall not be infringed

 

[candycorn]

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

you can't comprehend because you lack the ability to comprehend
It's simple
You can restrict privileges such as driving
FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT

Free speech is a right as well.
Do you have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? No.
Do you have the right to divulge state secrets? No.
Do you have the right to publish troop movements during wartime? No.

Your constitutional rights have limits.

Sorry to ruin your day with facts….actually that’s a lie. I’m not the least bit sorry. LOL

shall not be infringed

Rights are not absolute. Sorry. But you keep on believing they are. You have my permission.

 

[2aguy]

Did you fall for Clayton's stupidity?
WOW PRIVILEGES CAN BE IMPOSED ON AND RESTRICTED RIGHTS CAN NOT.

Try once more….English this time sling blade.

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

you can't comprehend because you lack the ability to comprehend
It's simple
You can restrict privileges such as driving
FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT

Free speech is a right as well.
Do you have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? No.
Do you have the right to divulge state secrets? No.
Do you have the right to publish troop movements during wartime? No.

Your constitutional rights have limits.

Sorry to ruin your day with facts….actually that’s a lie. I’m not the least bit sorry. LOL

Yes....and as we keep telling you....the 2nd Amendment is limited....

1) You can't use a gun to commit a crime.

2) You can't use a gun to violate the Rights of other people.

Why are those llimits, the only limits required, so hard for you to understand?

 

[2aguy]

From generations of ....... experience, statistics and concern we ought not to allow Americans to have guns.

Europeans are indeed pathetic dumbed down serfs

1. Kindergarten shootings

2. Primary school shootings

3. Junior High shootings

4. High school shootings

5. College shootings

6. University shootings

7. Post Office shootings

8. Church shootings

9. Road Rage shootings

10. Drive-by shootings

11. Shopping Mall shootings

12. Shooting spouse instead of divorce

13. Shooting spouse to collect insurance money

14. Shooting spouse to get child custody


* All of them perpetrated by domestics (Americans murdering other Americans).

* How many of each of them have you had?

* We haven't had a single one of those in my country.

Who is "pathetic dumbed down"?

Teach your kids well

Yeah.

View attachment 278092

caps lock was own not going back to rewrite the post
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING KILLED IN THOSE PLACES AND BE DISARMED AND NOT HAVE A GUN AND KILLED IN YOUR HOME BY HOME INVADERS?

Strawman fallacy.

No one is advocating that citizens be denied possessing firearms for self-defense – in or outside of the home.

The leadership of the democrat party is advocating exactly that...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Stop dodging with your excuse that you can not comprehend what you read.

I can’t comprehend whatever language you were using before…the part in all capital letters (as if that adds some sort of intelligence to your blather).

you can't comprehend because you lack the ability to comprehend
It's simple
You can restrict privileges such as driving
FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT

Free speech is a right as well.
Do you have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? No.
Do you have the right to divulge state secrets? No.
Do you have the right to publish troop movements during wartime? No.

Your constitutional rights have limits.

Sorry to ruin your day with facts….actually that’s a lie. I’m not the least bit sorry. LOL

shall not be infringed

Rights are not absolute. Sorry. But you keep on believing they are. You have my permission.

Rights have always been absolute
Do police have the authority to bust your door down without a warrant?