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.
The other night, I heard this POP POP POP. Next day,I look at my garage, and there is a couple of bullet holes in it. Why? Fuck this stupid shit, somebody could have been killed. Really? Who the hell needs guns after this ...stupidity? Don't debate this...it's rather obvious.
I will simplify my argument for those that don't get it. There are common sense laws regarding gun possession and ownership, including, the responsibility to keep them out of the hands of unsupervised children. A couple of you are so addicted to "the right to own and carry guns" that you don't even think that THOSE laws are appropriate. I maintain that you are so far beyond the pale of "responsible gun owners" that you have crossed over into the NUT zone. It therefore follows to some of us, that there are plenty of gun nuts who consider ANY gun restriction, whether "common sense", or not, to be wrong, and who are therefor not even worth arguing with. I like to know who they are, so that I don't waste my time even attempting to find common ground with them.
I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?
Still waiting...
Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.
There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.
But it's OK...Until it happens in THEIR little, tiny, myopic world where they play Keyboard Kowboys every day.
I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM' . That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER . New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted . By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!
And BTW, if you do not have a closed fence around your pool, or if you allow your toddler to wander around inside such fence unsupervised, you can be arrested for child endangerment, abuse, or neglect.
I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM' . That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER . New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted . By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!
Obama has been placing anti gun judges in the lower courts...where the initial decisions against guns will start...and the next President could change the court completely for the next 30 years......and lefties do not honor legal precedent.......
Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.
And BTW, if you do not have a closed fence around your pool, or if you allow your toddler to wander around inside such fence unsupervised, you can be arrested for child endangerment, abuse, or neglect.
See ^^^ right here...no special law needed...which was my point exactly.
Pools, more dangerous, no special law needed, your words.
Get it now?
We are in agreement.
Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.
You have no idea what you are talking about.......at all......please....learn something...go to thearmedcitizen site...or thetruthaobutguns and actually read the stories of actual people who actually use guns for self defense.....if you did that...and did some research you would see you are completely wrong...
Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack on average 1.6 million times a year...an average taken from 16 different studies on actual gun use in self defense...
But there is no doubt people use guns in defense. I feel the NCVS number is much closer with reality at 108,000 a year.
Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.
Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.
You have no idea what you are talking about.......at all......please....learn something...go to thearmedcitizen site...or thetruthaobutguns and actually read the stories of actual people who actually use guns for self defense.....if you did that...and did some research you would see you are completely wrong...
Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack on average 1.6 million times a year...an average taken from 16 different studies on actual gun use in self defense...
And about 230 criminals are shot in defense each year. So I wouldn't recommend buying into those surveys. They have been debunked in many ways.
Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM. it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.
Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.
You have no idea what you are talking about.......at all......please....learn something...go to thearmedcitizen site...or thetruthaobutguns and actually read the stories of actual people who actually use guns for self defense.....if you did that...and did some research you would see you are completely wrong...
Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack on average 1.6 million times a year...an average taken from 16 different studies on actual gun use in self defense...
And about 230 criminals are shot in defense each year. So I wouldn't recommend buying into those surveys. They have been debunked in many ways.
Again....law abiding citizens are not out to kill people, even criminals...so most gun defenses never involve firiing the gun.....and again....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on the self defense use of guns.....it is about crime victimization so there is no way it is even close to being accurate...
My number of 1.6 million times comes from averaging 16 different actual studies on Americans using guns for self defense, done by different independent researchers, from both public and private research groups, with many of them anti gun...and others which are neutral.........
So 108,000 is not even close to being the accurate number....
Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn' and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!
The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.
False...
“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”
It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.
But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.
Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.
The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”
Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”
Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.
The other defensive option would have been a standing army.
But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”
Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.
Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”
Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.
Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.
You have no idea what you are talking about.......at all......please....learn something...go to thearmedcitizen site...or thetruthaobutguns and actually read the stories of actual people who actually use guns for self defense.....if you did that...and did some research you would see you are completely wrong...
Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack on average 1.6 million times a year...an average taken from 16 different studies on actual gun use in self defense...
And about 230 criminals are shot in defense each year. So I wouldn't recommend buying into those surveys. They have been debunked in many ways.
Again....law abiding citizens are not out to kill people, even criminals...so most gun defenses never involve firiing the gun.....and again....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on the self defense use of guns.....it is about crime victimization so there is no way it is even close to being accurate...
My number of 1.6 million times comes from averaging 16 different actual studies on Americans using guns for self defense, done by different independent researchers, from both public and private research groups, with many of them anti gun...and others which are neutral.........
So 108,000 is not even close to being the accurate number....
Over 20 year old studies. Crime has come down over 30% since those were done. How do you account for that in your 1.6 number?
