Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

[Skull Pilot]

Compared to the UK, we should have around 250 homicide by gun cases per year. We have over 8,500. No one said we could go to zero, without completely eliminating guns, which really isn't practical. We can find ways to reduce our present amount of homicides by gun.

I don't care about the UK.

Never did. Never will.

All I care about is not ending up the victim of a crime and having my wife burned alive like this guy

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW that happened not too far from me. Now tell me do you want to be the man who survives knowing that you didn't, couldn't or wouldn't protect your wife and daughters from being raped and burned alive?

If he would have acted like the world was a violent place and locked his doors and had a weapon his wife and daughters might very well be alive today.

But nothing like that ever happens in your little fantasy world does it?

Again, you want to treat the symptoms and not the disease.

While crimes like this are horrible, there's no real evidence that a gun in the house would have made a difference. The Father in this case was subdued as he slept on the couch. Whether he had a gun in the house or not wouldn't have made a difference.

And you can't tell me with any certainty if it wouldn't have made a difference. If every person in that house had access and knew how to use a weapon there certainly was a chance that those people would be alive instead of being burned to death.

The difference between you and me is that I want people to have a chance to defend themselves you want them to have no chance to defend themselves so they can be raped and burned alive.

 

[daveman]

[
So, there it is:

You don't want women to be able to defend themselves from attackers.

You're a sick son of a bitch.

Again, a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a member of that woman's family than an "attacker".

Period.

Guns aren't the cure, they're the problem.

Quite hiding behind women's skirts to protect your fetish. Most of us would be safer with less guns.

Every Industrialized country that has banned guns has less crime than we do, not more.

Bitterly clinging to your lies proves only that you're a liar.

Meanwhile, it's irrefutable:

You want to disarm people so they can't defend themselves against criminals.

 

[daveman]

That and disarm the public Daveman.

Progressives don't give a damn about criminals. They want the public disarmed so they CAN'T oppose the oppressive government the progs want.

Period.

I'm still waiting to hear how you are being "oppressed"

"Waaaaahhh, I can't get my way and people aren't tolerating my selfish behavior! I'm gonna get my gun!"

Except no one's saying anything remotely like that.

And how is that any different at all from your attitude?

"Waaaaahhh, I can't get my way and people aren't tolerating my selfish behavior! I'm gonna get your guns!"

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, while I almost always appreciate the passion, conviction, and moral center of my fellow conservatives, in this case I think some of you have it wrong.

Liberals don't want people burned alive in their houses or mugged or robbed or raped or murdered any more than anybody else.

The problem is that the anti-gun, pro-more-gun-control liberals have been brainwashed into believing that it is as much problem for you and me to have a gun as it is for the bad guys. And they don't really draw a distinction between the law abiding and the law breaking.

It is a disconnect of reasoning to think that the way to keep guns out of the hands of the bad people is to take them away from the law abiding. It's sort of the same disconnect that it is okay to require parental consent for a child to take a field trip, but not okay to require parental consent for a child to get an abortion. It is the same kind of disconnect that it is okay to arrest people for breaking our laws if they are citizens, but not okay if they are not citizens.

It's sometimes like liberals and conservatives in modern day America are from two separate countries.

 

[Dubya]

I don't care about the UK.

Never did. Never will.

All I care about is not ending up the victim of a crime and having my wife burned alive like this guy

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW that happened not too far from me. Now tell me do you want to be the man who survives knowing that you didn't, couldn't or wouldn't protect your wife and daughters from being raped and burned alive?

If he would have acted like the world was a violent place and locked his doors and had a weapon his wife and daughters might very well be alive today.

But nothing like that ever happens in your little fantasy world does it?

Again, you want to treat the symptoms and not the disease.

While crimes like this are horrible, there's no real evidence that a gun in the house would have made a difference. The Father in this case was subdued as he slept on the couch. Whether he had a gun in the house or not wouldn't have made a difference.

And you can't tell me with any certainty if it wouldn't have made a difference. If every person in that house had access and knew how to use a weapon there certainly was a chance that those people would be alive instead of being burned to death.

The difference between you and me is that I want people to have a chance to defend themselves you want them to have no chance to defend themselves so they can be raped and burned alive.

You want laws that make people live in a dangerous society to justify your desire for a gun.

 

[daveman]

Again, you want to treat the symptoms and not the disease.

While crimes like this are horrible, there's no real evidence that a gun in the house would have made a difference. The Father in this case was subdued as he slept on the couch. Whether he had a gun in the house or not wouldn't have made a difference.

And you can't tell me with any certainty if it wouldn't have made a difference. If every person in that house had access and knew how to use a weapon there certainly was a chance that those people would be alive instead of being burned to death.

The difference between you and me is that I want people to have a chance to defend themselves you want them to have no chance to defend themselves so they can be raped and burned alive.

You want laws that make people live in a dangerous society to justify your desire for a gun.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again, you want to treat the symptoms and not the disease.

While crimes like this are horrible, there's no real evidence that a gun in the house would have made a difference. The Father in this case was subdued as he slept on the couch. Whether he had a gun in the house or not wouldn't have made a difference.

And you can't tell me with any certainty if it wouldn't have made a difference. If every person in that house had access and knew how to use a weapon there certainly was a chance that those people would be alive instead of being burned to death.

The difference between you and me is that I want people to have a chance to defend themselves you want them to have no chance to defend themselves so they can be raped and burned alive.

You want laws that make people live in a dangerous society to justify your desire for a gun.

FYI you delusional partisan society IS dangerous. And I am not making it so I am merely protecting myself from it.

 

[Dubya]

And you can't tell me with any certainty if it wouldn't have made a difference. If every person in that house had access and knew how to use a weapon there certainly was a chance that those people would be alive instead of being burned to death.

The difference between you and me is that I want people to have a chance to defend themselves you want them to have no chance to defend themselves so they can be raped and burned alive.

You want laws that make people live in a dangerous society to justify your desire for a gun.

FYI you delusional partisan society IS dangerous. And I am not making it so I am merely protecting myself from it.

Then you should support a law like universal registration of all firearms. All firearm sales need background checks and all firearms need to be registered. They can only be sold to someone who has passed a background check. If you are caught in the possession of a firearm that isn't registered, the firearm is confiscated and you are fined. All thefts of firearms require being reported. The registration of the firearms needs to be updated each year to make sure the weapon doesn't disappear and end up in the hands of criminals.

After awhile, the firearms will only be in the hands of criminals never caught doing a crime. Since the honest citizen can have a gun and very few criminals can, put a dog in the house to alert you to danger and there is very little to fear. When you are out, carry plastic and very little cash. Put a GPS tracker on your car!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

Fine...Then politicians in DC can apply this to their armed security. Idea?
Oh, no more large capacity arms for private security to guard celebrities either.
The moment our "elite"( politicians) must obey every law they pass or in the case of celebrities, have those laws apply to them, the howls of protest will soon follow.
Just imagine, George Clooney or some other card carrying liberal who uses armed security to keep the great unwashed masses at bay, hearing HIS security people will no longer be permitted to be armed to the teeth as they most likely are now, they will scream their heads off with the typical liberal refrain of "well THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!!"

 

[Skull Pilot]

You want laws that make people live in a dangerous society to justify your desire for a gun.

FYI you delusional partisan society IS dangerous. And I am not making it so I am merely protecting myself from it.

Then you should support a law like universal registration of all firearms. All firearm sales need background checks and all firearms need to be registered. They can only be sold to someone who has passed a background check. If you are caught in the possession of a firearm that isn't registered, the firearm is confiscated and you are fined. All thefts of firearms require being reported. The registration of the firearms needs to be updated each year to make sure the weapon doesn't disappear and end up in the hands of criminals.

After awhile, the firearms will only be in the hands of criminals never caught doing a crime. Since the honest citizen can have a gun and very few criminals can, put a dog in the house to alert you to danger and there is very little to fear. When you are out, carry plastic and very little cash. Put a GPS tracker on your car!

Where did I ever say I was against background checks? I went through an extensive one to get my concealed carry permit.

That said because I went through such an extensive check and that my fingerprints are on file with the state I should be able to walk into any gun store and buy what I want including those scary rifles you want to ban and a high capacity magazine to go with it.

I am against registering all weapons because it is the first step to a forced confiscation of all guns.

If I am not breaking the law the fucking government doesn't need to know what I keep in my home whether it be guns or gum drops.

I support a mandatory life in prison federal sentence for any and all crimes committed with a gun excluding self defense.

 

[Dubya]

FYI you delusional partisan society IS dangerous. And I am not making it so I am merely protecting myself from it.

Then you should support a law like universal registration of all firearms. All firearm sales need background checks and all firearms need to be registered. They can only be sold to someone who has passed a background check. If you are caught in the possession of a firearm that isn't registered, the firearm is confiscated and you are fined. All thefts of firearms require being reported. The registration of the firearms needs to be updated each year to make sure the weapon doesn't disappear and end up in the hands of criminals.

After awhile, the firearms will only be in the hands of criminals never caught doing a crime. Since the honest citizen can have a gun and very few criminals can, put a dog in the house to alert you to danger and there is very little to fear. When you are out, carry plastic and very little cash. Put a GPS tracker on your car!

Where did I ever say I was against background checks? I went through an extensive one to get my concealed carry permit.

That said because I went through such an extensive check and that my fingerprints are on file with the state I should be able to walk into any gun store and buy what I want including those scary rifles you want to ban and a high capacity magazine to go with it.

I am against registering all weapons because it is the first step to a forced confiscation of all guns.

If I am not breaking the law the fucking government doesn't need to know what I keep in my home whether it be guns or gum drops.

I support a mandatory life in prison federal sentence for any and all crimes committed with a gun excluding self defense.

What you said speaks of paranoia. The people of this country have a right to have firearms and that can't be changed without an amendment to the Constitution.

You can buy in a gun store as long as you have a background check. It should be obvious that someone could do something after getting a carry permit that should prevent them from buying firearms, so they always need background checks. It's up to the Congress to decide what weapons you are allowed to buy, not the NRA.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then you should support a law like universal registration of all firearms. All firearm sales need background checks and all firearms need to be registered. They can only be sold to someone who has passed a background check. If you are caught in the possession of a firearm that isn't registered, the firearm is confiscated and you are fined. All thefts of firearms require being reported. The registration of the firearms needs to be updated each year to make sure the weapon doesn't disappear and end up in the hands of criminals.

After awhile, the firearms will only be in the hands of criminals never caught doing a crime. Since the honest citizen can have a gun and very few criminals can, put a dog in the house to alert you to danger and there is very little to fear. When you are out, carry plastic and very little cash. Put a GPS tracker on your car!

Where did I ever say I was against background checks? I went through an extensive one to get my concealed carry permit.

That said because I went through such an extensive check and that my fingerprints are on file with the state I should be able to walk into any gun store and buy what I want including those scary rifles you want to ban and a high capacity magazine to go with it.

I am against registering all weapons because it is the first step to a forced confiscation of all guns.

If I am not breaking the law the fucking government doesn't need to know what I keep in my home whether it be guns or gum drops.

I support a mandatory life in prison federal sentence for any and all crimes committed with a gun excluding self defense.

What you said speaks of paranoia. The people of this country have a right to have firearms and that can't be changed without an amendment to the Constitution.

You can buy in a gun store as long as you have a background check. It should be obvious that someone could do something after getting a carry permit that should prevent them from buying firearms, so they always need background checks. It's up to the Congress to decide what weapons you are allowed to buy, not the NRA.

The first think that will happen to my carry permit if I get arrested for anything is it will be revoked.

So I really can't go on a crime spree and then buy more weapons legally.

And I don't call wanting privacy being paranoid.

Having to submit a list of weapons I own to the government is nothing more than an unwarranted search.

There's an amendment about that too.

 

[Dubya]

Where did I ever say I was against background checks? I went through an extensive one to get my concealed carry permit.

That said because I went through such an extensive check and that my fingerprints are on file with the state I should be able to walk into any gun store and buy what I want including those scary rifles you want to ban and a high capacity magazine to go with it.

I am against registering all weapons because it is the first step to a forced confiscation of all guns.

If I am not breaking the law the fucking government doesn't need to know what I keep in my home whether it be guns or gum drops.

I support a mandatory life in prison federal sentence for any and all crimes committed with a gun excluding self defense.

What you said speaks of paranoia. The people of this country have a right to have firearms and that can't be changed without an amendment to the Constitution.

You can buy in a gun store as long as you have a background check. It should be obvious that someone could do something after getting a carry permit that should prevent them from buying firearms, so they always need background checks. It's up to the Congress to decide what weapons you are allowed to buy, not the NRA.

The first think that will happen to my carry permit if I get arrested for anything is it will be revoked.

So I really can't go on a crime spree and then buy more weapons legally.

And I don't call wanting privacy being paranoid.

Having to submit a list of weapons I own to the government is nothing more than an unwarranted search.

There's an amendment about that too.

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

What if the law required all guns to be registered and that registration had to be renewed each year. What if the law required ballistic tests during those yearly renewals and before the weapon was purchased. A law requiring background checks on every sale, even private. Possession of an unregistered firearm means the firearm is confiscated and the person is fined and possibly jailed or given probation. What if the cops in the cities started behaving like those NYC cops and search anyone they suspected of having a gun? What if the purchase of a gun required a cooling off period where the gun is sent to a center near you, where it is ballistic fired and bullet is scanned to be sent to the FBI. If the person had multiple weapons, a newly purchased gun would be sceduled less than a year at the time for the individual to renew his registrations on all his weapons.

Now, I can think of a few more, but I think you get the point. Such a system would require more of an effort by the law abiding citizen than they have to do today, but it would get the guns off the streets. If a gun was registered, I don't think someone would be too inclined to shoot somebody with it, knowing the ballistics of their bullet is on record. An unregistered gun isn't going to last that long in society under those conditions. A person in possession of an unregistered gun may lose their gun ownership ability for life, it depends on the circumstances, but a minimum suspension would be required. If they owned other guns, they would be locked in an armory until the person was allowed to own a gun again, if they were allowed.

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

 

[Katzndogz]

The second amendment doesn't need to be reconsidered. Liberals need to be obliterated.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What you said speaks of paranoia. The people of this country have a right to have firearms and that can't be changed without an amendment to the Constitution.

You can buy in a gun store as long as you have a background check. It should be obvious that someone could do something after getting a carry permit that should prevent them from buying firearms, so they always need background checks. It's up to the Congress to decide what weapons you are allowed to buy, not the NRA.

The first think that will happen to my carry permit if I get arrested for anything is it will be revoked.

So I really can't go on a crime spree and then buy more weapons legally.

And I don't call wanting privacy being paranoid.

Having to submit a list of weapons I own to the government is nothing more than an unwarranted search.

There's an amendment about that too.

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

What if the law required all guns to be registered and that registration had to be renewed each year. What if the law required ballistic tests during those yearly renewals and before the weapon was purchased. A law requiring background checks on every sale, even private. Possession of an unregistered firearm means the firearm is confiscated and the person is fined and possibly jailed or given probation. What if the cops in the cities started behaving like those NYC cops and search anyone they suspected of having a gun? What if the purchase of a gun required a cooling off period where the gun is sent to a center near you, where it is ballistic fired and bullet is scanned to be sent to the FBI. If the person had multiple weapons, a newly purchased gun would be sceduled less than a year at the time for the individual to renew his registrations on all his weapons.

Now, I can think of a few more, but I think you get the point. Such a system would require more of an effort by the law abiding citizen than they have to do today, but it would get the guns off the streets. If a gun was registered, I don't think someone would be too inclined to shoot somebody with it, knowing the ballistics of their bullet is on record. An unregistered gun isn't going to last that long in society under those conditions. A person in possession of an unregistered gun may lose their gun ownership ability for life, it depends on the circumstances, but a minimum suspension would be required. If they owned other guns, they would be locked in an armory until the person was allowed to own a gun again, if they were allowed.

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

Which came first gun confiscation or gun registration?

 

[Dubya]

The first think that will happen to my carry permit if I get arrested for anything is it will be revoked.

So I really can't go on a crime spree and then buy more weapons legally.

And I don't call wanting privacy being paranoid.

Having to submit a list of weapons I own to the government is nothing more than an unwarranted search.

There's an amendment about that too.

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

What if the law required all guns to be registered and that registration had to be renewed each year. What if the law required ballistic tests during those yearly renewals and before the weapon was purchased. A law requiring background checks on every sale, even private. Possession of an unregistered firearm means the firearm is confiscated and the person is fined and possibly jailed or given probation. What if the cops in the cities started behaving like those NYC cops and search anyone they suspected of having a gun? What if the purchase of a gun required a cooling off period where the gun is sent to a center near you, where it is ballistic fired and bullet is scanned to be sent to the FBI. If the person had multiple weapons, a newly purchased gun would be sceduled less than a year at the time for the individual to renew his registrations on all his weapons.

Now, I can think of a few more, but I think you get the point. Such a system would require more of an effort by the law abiding citizen than they have to do today, but it would get the guns off the streets. If a gun was registered, I don't think someone would be too inclined to shoot somebody with it, knowing the ballistics of their bullet is on record. An unregistered gun isn't going to last that long in society under those conditions. A person in possession of an unregistered gun may lose their gun ownership ability for life, it depends on the circumstances, but a minimum suspension would be required. If they owned other guns, they would be locked in an armory until the person was allowed to own a gun again, if they were allowed.

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

Which came first gun confiscation or gun registration?

People could have guns under that system. Why would somebody what to take them from the people? Your guns aren't anything against the might of our military. You aren't a threat to anybody but yourself for thinking like a lunatic. Unless you are in the military, you are a none player. The military can keep the government from turning to a tyrant and it wouldn't do it anyway.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What you said speaks of paranoia. The people of this country have a right to have firearms and that can't be changed without an amendment to the Constitution.

You can buy in a gun store as long as you have a background check. It should be obvious that someone could do something after getting a carry permit that should prevent them from buying firearms, so they always need background checks. It's up to the Congress to decide what weapons you are allowed to buy, not the NRA.

The first think that will happen to my carry permit if I get arrested for anything is it will be revoked.

So I really can't go on a crime spree and then buy more weapons legally.

And I don't call wanting privacy being paranoid.

Having to submit a list of weapons I own to the government is nothing more than an unwarranted search.

There's an amendment about that too.

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

What if the law required all guns to be registered and that registration had to be renewed each year. What if the law required ballistic tests during those yearly renewals and before the weapon was purchased. A law requiring background checks on every sale, even private. Possession of an unregistered firearm means the firearm is confiscated and the person is fined and possibly jailed or given probation. What if the cops in the cities started behaving like those NYC cops and search anyone they suspected of having a gun? What if the purchase of a gun required a cooling off period where the gun is sent to a center near you, where it is ballistic fired and bullet is scanned to be sent to the FBI. If the person had multiple weapons, a newly purchased gun would be sceduled less than a year at the time for the individual to renew his registrations on all his weapons.

Now, I can think of a few more, but I think you get the point. Such a system would require more of an effort by the law abiding citizen than they have to do today, but it would get the guns off the streets. If a gun was registered, I don't think someone would be too inclined to shoot somebody with it, knowing the ballistics of their bullet is on record. An unregistered gun isn't going to last that long in society under those conditions. A person in possession of an unregistered gun may lose their gun ownership ability for life, it depends on the circumstances, but a minimum suspension would be required. If they owned other guns, they would be locked in an armory until the person was allowed to own a gun again, if they were allowed.

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

Actually guns commit zero (0) homicides each year.

"If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal."
But only if the courts rule that it is not an infrigment on Constitutional right.

"You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference."
Or maybe you're the idiot for not understanding that noone is making any such claim.
The claim (the truth) is that more laws are not going to hamper those willing those to break the law and commit violent crime. The recent shootings only provide additional proof of that.

Your suggestions are obvious infrigments on my rights and will not be tolerated.

 

[Shogun]

I don't think it's a gun problem at all. Humanity has always been rife with violence and life is sometimes unfortunate. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who are not blowing people away just like there are a lot of kids who play video games that don't go out shooting shit up.

it's the person not the tool.


I do find it highly ironic that the same NRA pussies crying about liberty and guns are the quickest to point fingers at video games as if liberty shouldn't apply there as well.

 

[Dubya]

The first think that will happen to my carry permit if I get arrested for anything is it will be revoked.

So I really can't go on a crime spree and then buy more weapons legally.

And I don't call wanting privacy being paranoid.

Having to submit a list of weapons I own to the government is nothing more than an unwarranted search.

There's an amendment about that too.

If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal. You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference.

What if the law required all guns to be registered and that registration had to be renewed each year. What if the law required ballistic tests during those yearly renewals and before the weapon was purchased. A law requiring background checks on every sale, even private. Possession of an unregistered firearm means the firearm is confiscated and the person is fined and possibly jailed or given probation. What if the cops in the cities started behaving like those NYC cops and search anyone they suspected of having a gun? What if the purchase of a gun required a cooling off period where the gun is sent to a center near you, where it is ballistic fired and bullet is scanned to be sent to the FBI. If the person had multiple weapons, a newly purchased gun would be sceduled less than a year at the time for the individual to renew his registrations on all his weapons.

Now, I can think of a few more, but I think you get the point. Such a system would require more of an effort by the law abiding citizen than they have to do today, but it would get the guns off the streets. If a gun was registered, I don't think someone would be too inclined to shoot somebody with it, knowing the ballistics of their bullet is on record. An unregistered gun isn't going to last that long in society under those conditions. A person in possession of an unregistered gun may lose their gun ownership ability for life, it depends on the circumstances, but a minimum suspension would be required. If they owned other guns, they would be locked in an armory until the person was allowed to own a gun again, if they were allowed.

It beats allowing over 8,500 American homicide by guns per year. If it inconveniences you, that's just too damned bad. Go cry to the NRA, don't cry to me about it!

Actually guns commit zero (0) homicides each year.

"If the government decides that weapons need to be registered, it's legal."
But only if the courts rule that it is not an infrigment on Constitutional right.

"You're the idiots claiming changes in the law can't make a difference."
Or maybe you're the idiot for not understanding that noone is making any such claim.
The claim (the truth) is that more laws are not going to hamper those willing those to break the law and commit violent crime. The recent shootings only provide additional proof of that.

Your suggestions are obvious infrigments on my rights and will not be tolerated.

How childish can you get?

You have the right to not be disarmed and that's it. Making you get background checks and register your weapons isn't violating your rights.

With those changes the guns that criminal possess will fade away. There would be very little gun crime.

 

[Dubya]

I don't think it's a gun problem at all. Humanity has always been rife with violence and life is sometimes unfortunate. There are a lot of responsible gun owners who are not blowing people away just like there are a lot of kids who play video games that don't go out shooting shit up.

it's the person not the tool.


I do find it highly ironic that the same NRA pussies crying about liberty and guns are the quickest to point fingers at video games as if liberty shouldn't apply there as well.

It's hard to beat people to death or kill them with a knife. It's easy with a gun.