When Will The Day Be?

Grease said:
the day a liberal taker takes my gun away from me is the day they die.

(i don't own a gun yet but I am getting one soon if for no other reason than to spite you taker motherfuckers)
Click to expand...

Grease said:
the gun takers must be dealt with by any means necessary. They are domestic enemies of the constitution and a direct threat to our existence. Once they take our guns, they'll be nothing standing in their way to impose total tyranny. Which is exactly what they want.
Click to expand...

You've got a long ways to go to be the king of "The Hall of Shame: Funny Shit I Read On the Internet". Right now, it's Jim DeMint, so the crown's available...

Dixie said:
This is just laughable. In colonial days, pretty much the diametric opposite was true, very few people didn't own some kind of firearm. Those who didn't, largely ended up without their scalps.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They owned rifles, not guns. Guns were owned by the elites.

Now, tell us, which Indian tribes scalped the American settlers? Your distant relatives in Oklahoma?

HANG THE INJUN!
 
I find it sickening that liberals are willing to use these deaths to force their gun control agenda.

You seem to believe that all gun owners are secretly planning mass shootings!
 
christiefan915 said:
From Ken's article:

[h=3]6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.[/h] Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.
Click to expand...

You are being hysterical.Stop it. You are just emotional and not rational

If you break a law with a gun you pay a penalty. There are gun control laws.
 
Last year handguns killed...

48 people in Japan
8 in Great Briton
34 in Switzerland
52 in Canada
58 in Israel
21 in Sweden
42 in West Germany
10,728 in the United States

God Bless America...we're #1
 
Haiku said:
Last year handguns killed...

48 people in Japan
8 in Great Briton
34 in Switzerland
52 in Canada
58 in Israel
21 in Sweden
42 in West Germany
10,728 in the United States

God Bless America...we're #1
Click to expand...

assuming your uncited source is correct....that many died by DUI 'accidents'

how are those DUI laws working? where is your concern for those deaths?
 
Howey said:
Wrong. They owned rifles, not guns. Guns were owned by the elites.

Now, tell us, which Indian tribes scalped the American settlers? Your distant relatives in Oklahoma?

HANG THE INJUN!
Click to expand...

Not wrong, because I clearly said "firearms."

During the colonial days, the Indian tribes who scalped British settlers were mostly Iroquois and Wabanaki, who were paid by French colonists for the scalps. Little known fact, there were more Indians scalped than settlers during this period, because governors of the colonies offered rewards for Indian scalps as well.

My ancestors were the Cherokee and Choctaws of the Carolinas and Mississippi Valley respectively, and they were not known for scalping their enemies. My distant relatives are not from Oklahoma, many of our tribe ended up in Oklahoma following the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and what became known as the Trail of Tears. This is where YOUR ancestors marched my people from the Southeast to Oklahoma on foot, with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

But don't let history interfere with your racism, I would hate for an ignorant bigot such as yourself to become educated.
 
I don't own a gun, I'm not an NRA member, I've held a gun once in my life. I want to ask is it a councidence that these shootings take place in gun free zones? (My apologies if this has already been asked and discussed earlier and I missed it.)
 
Howey said:
I keep hearing on FB and on the internet that "Today's not the day to discuss gun control.".

My question is?

When?

When do we discuss it?

Are we going to wait until after more children are killed?

If we had really discussed gun control following Columbine, could today have been prevented?

What about after the following incidents?

— Aug. 5, 2012: Army veteran Wade Michael Page kills five men and one woman and wounds three other people, including a police officer, before taking his own life at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee.

— July 20, 2012: Twelve people are killed when a gunman enters an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, releases a canister of gas and then opens fire during opening night of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises." James Holmes, a 24-year-old former graduate student at the University of Colorado, has been charged in the deaths.

— Jan. 8, 2011: A gunman kills six people and wounds 13 others, including then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in a shooting spree outside a grocery store in Tucson, Ariz. Doctors say Jared Lee Loughner, who has been charged in the deaths, suffers from schizophrenia.

— Nov. 5, 2009: Thirteen soldiers and civilians were killed and more than two dozen wounded when a gunman walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and opened fire. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

— March 10, 2009: Michael McLendon, 28, killed 10 people — including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff's deputy — across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself.

— April 16, 2007: Seung-Hui Cho, 23, kills 32 people and himself on Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Va.

— April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing themselves in the school's library.

I don't care if it takes fifty years to get guns off the streets...the time to do it is now. Not tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Progressives ideas and parenting is why these kids are dead.
 
Howey said:
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.

Join the fucking National Guard.
Click to expand...

Yo... the SCOTUS agrees with me. The first part of a sentence is one reason that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first thing you have wrong is assuming that "militia" means the National Guard. It doesn't, it is an extension of the DoD. A militia is made up of regular joe citizens, not uniformed government soldiers...

In order to read it your way, you have to pretend that "the people" in this one instance in this document means something different than it does in all the rest. This is a right of the people, you have no right to attempt to take guns away from people. In order to get that done you'll need to Amend the document.
 
Damocles said:
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.

We'll have to discuss some other solutions, because you have no right to take away anybody's guns.
Click to expand...

A free mililtia was needed then, but not now.
The constitution can be changed.
And if these kinds of massacres keep on happening it just might be changed.
 
uscitizen too said:
A free mililtia was needed then, but not now.
The constitution can be changed.
And if these kinds of massacres keep on happening it just might be changed.
Click to expand...
Yes, it can be changed. In exactly the manner I stated. Either you get an Amendment passed, or we talk about different solutions.
 
In another 7 days it will not matter anyway.

Shoot that big rock all you want it will still spat humans lilke bugs.
 
Howey said:
Why? That's what I want.



Please explain.
Click to expand...

do you not understand what you posted in your OP? your entire premise is that no one is talking about it and instead are saying not to talk about it.

i showed you repeatedly that this is false and i even linked up to where they are in fact discussing it. thus, there was zero need for you to whine about when we should discuss gun control, because it is talked about every single time we have an incident like this and was in fact discussed this time.

because i know you will need further explaining, my point is, that your OP is nothing but empty whining as it is being discussed. thus, you do not know what you're talking about and live under a rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top