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.
in the usa there are 2 million people each year who successfully protect themselves from criminals.
Take away all guns from the law abiding citizens and you create 2 million new victims each year.
Does that sound like a good policy to anyone?
You know that Heller does not address background checks and so you know that Heller did not hold that background checks are constitutional.There is no lie,Thisi is a lie, as Heller says no such thing regarding background checks.The extremism on both sides of the issue is pointless.
Gun control is not BS.
Many regulatory policies are perfectly appropriate, such as background checks, prohibiting the mentally ill and felons from possessing firearms, and forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. See: DC v. Heller (2008).
You know that Heller does not address background checks and so you know that Heller did not hold that background checks are constitutional.There is no lie,Thisi is a lie, as Heller says no such thing regarding background checks.
Thus, your lie.
[
My uncle is alive because he was armed. No amount of screaming horseshit to the heavens will change that simple fact.
[
My uncle is alive because he was armed. No amount of screaming horseshit to the heavens will change that simple fact.
Yeah that's the story you keep telling...
but again, since we have no way of verifying that this actually happened, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
I'll go with the numbers collected.
11,101 Homicides
19,000 Suicides
850 accidents.
201 cases where a bad guy was killed in what was rulled self defence.
In short, for every case of a lethal force being used defensive, you have 160 where it was used maliciously.
Yeah, trained and screened guys like Chris Dorner, Nadal Hassan, and Laurence Powell? Dude, you're dumb as a box of rocks and crazier than a shithouse rat.
Again, more crazy civilians going off shooting people than crazy cops/soldiers.
And they don't have a good reason to have them to start with.
Who needs a reason?
-Geaux
[
My uncle is alive because he was armed. No amount of screaming horseshit to the heavens will change that simple fact.
Yeah that's the story you keep telling...
but again, since we have no way of verifying that this actually happened, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
I'll go with the numbers collected.
11,101 Homicides
19,000 Suicides
850 accidents.
201 cases where a bad guy was killed in what was rulled self defence.
In short, for every case of a lethal force being used defensive, you have 160 where it was used maliciously.
Build prisons and enforce laws on the books now. Until then, smoke and mirrors.
-Geaux
Yeah that's the story you keep telling...
but again, since we have no way of verifying that this actually happened, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
I'll go with the numbers collected.
11,101 Homicides
19,000 Suicides
850 accidents.
201 cases where a bad guy was killed in what was rulled self defence.
In short, for every case of a lethal force being used defensive, you have 160 where it was used maliciously.
Build prisons and enforce laws on the books now. Until then, smoke and mirrors.
-Geaux
Dumb Fuck. We lock up 2 million people. More than any country in the world. We aren't any safer.
Build prisons and enforce laws on the books now. Until then, smoke and mirrors.
-Geaux
Dumb Fuck. We lock up 2 million people. More than any country in the world. We aren't any safer.
Need to lock up more and for longer. Enforce the laws on the books now to stop gun crimes. Why? Evidently, DC is not serious about crime.
-Geaux
Dumb Fuck. We lock up 2 million people. More than any country in the world. We aren't any safer.
Need to lock up more and for longer. Enforce the laws on the books now to stop gun crimes. Why? Evidently, DC is not serious about crime.
-Geaux
No, we don't. In fact, the Prison-Industrial Complex is the large part of the problem. We create a permanent, unemployable prison class.
Most states are letting crimnals go now because they simply can't afford to keep that many locked up anymore.
Need to lock up more and for longer. Enforce the laws on the books now to stop gun crimes. Why? Evidently, DC is not serious about crime.
-Geaux
No, we don't. In fact, the Prison-Industrial Complex is the large part of the problem. We create a permanent, unemployable prison class.
Most states are letting crimnals go now because they simply can't afford to keep that many locked up anymore.
I agree with the latter. We need to fix that. I have no sympathy once you enter the pearly gates of the big house. Lock em up. Commit a crime with a gun and let the chips fall where they may.
Calendars are cheap
-Geaux
No, we don't. In fact, the Prison-Industrial Complex is the large part of the problem. We create a permanent, unemployable prison class.
Most states are letting crimnals go now because they simply can't afford to keep that many locked up anymore.
I agree with the latter. We need to fix that. I have no sympathy once you enter the pearly gates of the big house. Lock em up. Commit a crime with a gun and let the chips fall where they may.
Calendars are cheap
-Geaux
It costs $29,000 a year to lock up a prisoner. If we were to lock up all 7 million people on parole or probation, it would cost 261 BILLION to lock them all up.
Just ain't going to happen. We don't have that kind of money.
[
You get it right the first time. Not after repeat offenses (parole) with a firearm. We need to make the consequences high for the criminal, not the law abiding citizen.
-Geaux
Heller neither addresses not considers background checks and so to argue that Heller held that background checks are constitutional is either abject ignorance or outright dishonesty.You know that Heller does not address background checks and so you know that Heller did not hold that background checks are constitutional.There is no ‘lie,’
Thus, your lie.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Heller neither addresses not considers background checks and so to argue that Heller held that background checks are constitutional is either abject ignorance or outright dishonesty.You know that Heller does not address background checks and so you know that Heller did not hold that background checks are constitutional.
Thus, your lie.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Which term would best describe you?
I asked you a question first. Please answer it.Answer this question:Heller neither addresses not considers background checks and so to argue that Heller held that background checks are constitutional is either abject ignorance or outright dishonesty.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Which term would best describe you?
The second amendment is very clear on what it says. The problem is it sates two different things. It says that the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed but it also says that we have the right to keep a militia trained and ready to fight being necessary to the free state. (Not exact words). So both conservatives and liberals are picking out the parts that argue their side which doesn't get us anywhere.
Heller neither addresses not considers background checks and so to argue that Heller held that background checks are constitutional is either abject ignorance or outright dishonesty.You know that Heller does not address background checks and so you know that Heller did not hold that background checks are constitutional.
Thus, your lie.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Which term would best describe you?
