Biden admits truth Finally amazing

[Nomad]

i'm curious...........i've asked this question of many democrats/liberals/progressives/antigunners and never gotten any other answer than them calling me a cowardly submissive moron....so maybe you'll be more honest.........

what makes you think we won't have had enough and finally start killing every cop that comes for our guns?

Because nobody wants to die and if you shoot a cop, a whole shit load of them are going to come down on you like a hammer and shoot back at you until all that's left of you is a tattered, lifeless, unrecognizable corpse, leaking blood, bodily fluids and viscera out of dozens of holes where bullets from their guns punctured your flesh.

That's usually an overarching concern of most people.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You're right. He should be able to own anything he wants.
Let him have a rocket launcher, a dozen grenades and a little dirty bomb (but just a little one. We don't want to go overboard).

It's a better option than your unconstitutional restrictions are.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

It's a better option than your unconstitutional restrictions are.

There IS a happy medium, you know. It isn't always one extreme or the other. You understand that, right?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Because nobody wants to die and if you shoot a cop, a whole shit load of them are going to come down on you like a hammer and shoot back at you until all that's left of you is a tattered, lifeless, unrecognizable corpse, leaking blood, bodily fluids and viscera out of dozens of holes where bullets from their guns punctured your flesh.

That's usually an overarching concern of most people.

so you're saying that there's no way a whole shitload of pissed off marine veterans could stand against an angry government force of jackbooted thugs????

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're right. He should be able to own anything he wants.
Let him have a rocket launcher, a dozen grenades and a little dirty bomb (but just a little one. We don't want to go overboard).

I prefer smaller and more directed weapons.........an RPG, definitely grenades, but no dirty bombs......claymores would be very nice

 

[Joe Capitalist]

I prefer smaller and more directed weapons.........an RPG, definitely grenades, but no dirty bombs......claymores would be very nice

No dirty bombs? You fucking far-left liberal. Why do you want to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights?
You liberals are all alike.

 

[Nomad]

so you're saying that there's no way a whole shitload of pissed off marine veterans could stand against an angry government force of jackbooted thugs????

Sort of, but not exactly.

First of all, not every gun fanatic is a military vet.

Second of all, most vets are not "pissed off" at the gub-mint, or at least not enough to go off the deep end and start shooting cops. I know a couple of ex-marines. One of them was a combat officer in Vietnam. Used to teach high school phys ed and helped coach the football team. Nicest, most peaceful and serene guy I ever met. Never talked about his military past unless i was somehow germaine to the conversation and even then, only briefly.

The other one was one of my best friends in HS. He did one hitch as a jarhead, stationed in Gitmo in the 80's (pre-9/11) walking guard duty along the perimeter fence. He's into formula racing and builds model cars as a hobby. Used to work on foreign cars like MG, Triumph, Austin Healey etc. for a living. Probably still has a gun because he worked for several years right after finishing his hitch, as an armed security guard at the Kennedy Space Center until his company lost the contract. But he isn't obsessed with them or with shooting people and would likely go as far out of his way as possible to avoid shooting anyone.

That kind of crap is for mentally unbalanced nutjobs, most of who like to fancy themselves as hardened, tough guys and killers etc, but in reality, they're mostly just a lot of talk.

Lastly, I don't see the police or govt agents as "jackbooted thugs", so that part of your case is null and void afaic.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No dirty bombs? You fucking far-left liberal. Why do you want to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights?
You liberals are all alike.

dirty bombs incur too much collateral damage............I prefer specific targeting......

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sort of, but not exactly.

First of all, not every gun fanatic is a military vet.

Second of all, most vets are not "pissed off" at the gub-mint, or at least not enough to go off the deep end and start shooting cops. I know a couple of ex-marines. One of them was a combat officer in Vietnam. Used to teach high school phys ed and helped coach the football team. Nicest, most peaceful and serene guy I ever met. Never talked about his military past unless i was somehow germaine to the conversation and even then, only briefly.

The other one was one of my best friends in HS. He did one hitch as a jarhead, stationed in Gitmo in the 80's (pre-9/11) walking guard duty along the perimeter fence. He's into formula racing and builds model cars as a hobby. Used to work on foreign cars like MG, Triumph, Austin Healey etc. for a living. Probably still has a gun because he worked for several years right after finishing his hitch, as an armed security guard at the Kennedy Space Center until his company lost the contract. But he isn't obsessed with them or with shooting people and would likely go as far out of his way as possible to avoid shooting anyone.

That kind of crap is for mentally unbalanced nutjobs, most of who like to fancy themselves as hardened, tough guys and killers etc, but in reality, they're mostly just a lot of talk.

Lastly, I don't see the police or govt agents as "jackbooted thugs", so that part of your case is null and void afaic.

you're certainly entitled to your opinion.........i'll even give you that some of it might be correct, at least in regards to your experience of your two friends........but the rest.............well, it's just not correct......

 

[Nomad]

dirty bombs incur too much collateral damage............I prefer specific targeting......

I think you've watched too many Rambo movies.

 

[Nordberg]

Homes with guns are less safe than those without. They are used in anger and by kids They are used in suicide. They are shot by accident. If you have guns, you put your family in jeopardy.

 

[Nomad]

Homes with guns are less safe than those without. They are used in anger and by kids They are used in suicide. They are shot by accident. If you have guns, you put your family in jeopardy.

That is a statistical fact.

Guns in homes also get stolen during burglaries and used on other people or to commit armed crimes.

Sometimes, they are even used against the owner.

It stands to reason that having a dangerous weapon around increases one's chances of having a bad outcome involving it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I think you've watched too many Rambo movies.

or excelled at my USMC training...............but then I understand that regular civilians like you have an impossible time wrapping your head around the fact that we don't get neuralized after our enlistment, like the men in black do........

 

[LV426]

or excelled at my USMC training...............but then I understand that regular civilians like you have an impossible time wrapping your head around the fact that we don't get neuralized after our enlistment, like the men in black do........

No, you just get taxpayer-provided housing, training, employment, education, health care, food, and clothing.

Now, if someone got all those things and weren't a member of the armed forces, you'd call them a welfare leech, wouldn't you?

 

[Into the Night]

Biased Faux News BS.

Why does the gy need an AR-15 to defend his home?

You don't get to choose the weapon someone wants to use to defend his home.

Why can't he use a 12 ga shotgun or a 30.30 or a 30.06?

He can. You don't get to choose what weapon someone wants to use to defend their home.

Why can't he use a Glock or some other hand gun?

He can.

Where is it written that an AR-15 is the only weapon that you can use to defend your home against intruders?

He can use an AR-15 style rifle as well. You don't get to choose what weapon someone wants to use to defend their home.

 

[Into the Night]

First of all, I am not a progressive. I hold most of them in almost as much disdain as I do your ilk.

Second of all, he doesn't need my permission.

He needs authorization from the government whose job it is to determine such things based on several factors including public safety and the common good.

If the government feels that AR-15's are not necessary to protect one's home and/or that owners should register them with ATF, then that's just the way it is.

Douchebags like you don't get to pick and choose which laws you'll obey and which ones you won't.

You are a progressive douchebag. The federal government has NO authority to designate what type of weapon someone may use to defend their home, their person, their families, their city, or their State. See the 2nd and 10th amendments, and Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know who said it was written anywhere.

The 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and in the constitutions of most States.

Apparently, the govt wants to either buy them back or have owners register them.

Don't know how that equates to saying they can't be owned.

Illegal.

 

[Into the Night]

They are one of the weapons of choice of mass shooters/killers.

WRONG. The favored weapon is a .22 semiautomatic rifle or pistol.

They have no place in a safe, civilised, law-abiding society.

You are ignoring the law and the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of most States. You do not get to choose what weapon someone may own or use.

 

[Into the Night]

You called me "douchy", potty mouth.

Kettle logic.

So then when the government makes it illegal to own an AR-15, you'll just STFU and obey the law, right?

The government has no such authority. A federal or State government trying to ban an AR-15 is breaking the law.

 

[Into the Night]

Total numbers have nothing to do with it.

So you decide to ignore history, eh?

Mass shooters and psychopaths love assault style rifles and that's more than enough reason to ban them.

Define 'assault style rifle'. Buzzword fallacy. You don't get to ban any weapon. Neither does the federal government. Neither does any State government. That is breaking the law to pass such a law or to enforce such a ban.

Just because a bunch of selfish, right-wing, macho idiot redneck gun-goobers, barrel-strokers and trigger-lickers don't like the idea of being told which guns they can and can't own with zero regard for putting public safety over and above their own selfish wants, doesn't mean jack shit.

The Constitution is not jack shit.

When the govt says give them up, you'll give them up.

They have no authority to. They would be breaking the law.

And that day is coming.

If it does, you will be among the first against the wall when the revolution comes.