Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you have a link for those stats? I would love to take a look at them, if I may.

I've linked them before on this board...read some of the old abortion threads.....I'm not in the mood to repeat myself to worthless lib'ruls who never read my posts....if you don't want to do that go to the CDC and look it up yourself......

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You can’t find the Heller decision?

What a laughable fucking loser.

I never said I couldn't find it; because what I said was that you hadn't provided the link.

What a laughable fucking loser.

 

[domer76]

I never said I couldn't find it; because what I said was that you hadn't provided the link.

What a laughable fucking loser.

I gave you the case, you dumbfuck. And you are too lazy and stupid to find it. Google one word, dumbshit. That’s it takes

What a loser moron.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

If banning guns is pointless because people can just get guns on the black market, is banning abortion also pointless?

Bringing together the firearms and abortion controversies is a good point.

Righties have to shut the fuck up and accept abortion on demand.

Lefties have to shut the fuck up and accept gun ownership on demand.

That's the trade off. I wish that both sides would just live with it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I gave you the case, you dumbfuck. And you are too lazy and stupid to find it. Google one word, dumbshit. That’s it takes

What a loser moron.

And when asked for the link, dumbfuck, you were to lazy and stupid to find it.

All you have to do is Google it, dumbshit.

That's all it takes.

 

[domer76]

And when asked for the link, dumbfuck, you were to lazy and stupid to find it.

All you have to do is Google it, dumbshit.

That's all it takes.

Too lazy, too stupid to Google “Heller” and try to educate yourself. Just as I always predict with you

Still have’t read Heller yet, have you, lazy ignoramus?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Too lazy, too stupid to Google “Heller” and try to educate yourself. Just as always predict with.

Still have’t read Heller yet, have you, lazy ignoramus?

And your too lazy, too stupid to provide a link and try to help yourself.

Just as always predict with.

Still have’t provided a link, have you, lazy ignoramus?

 

[domer76]

And your too lazy, too stupid to provide a link and try to help yourself.

Just as always predict with.

Still have’t provided a link, have you, lazy ignoramus?

I gave you the source, dumbshit. I have no desire to do all your homework for you. Try to educate yourself for once, moron

Still haven’t read it, have you lazy ass?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I gave you the source, dumbshit. I have no desire to do all your homework for you. Try to educate yourself for once, moron

Still haven’t read it, have you lazy ass?

You have given any source, dumbshit.

I have no desire to do all your homework for you. Try to educate yourself for once, moron

Still haven’t read it, have you lazy ass?

 

[rjhenn]

Where guns are restricted, dumbfuck, the gun death rate is lower. Deny all you want. You merely look stupid

Again, the gun death rate was lower in those countries before guns were restricted. The restrictions didn't change anything. And most of the world demonstrates that restricting guns does nothing to make things better. You are deep in your wishful thinking, completely denying reality.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Try to educate yourself so you don’t publicly humiliate yourself.

Scalia said:

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

At the time of the Constitution's ratification, civilians could own field artillery. And concealment laws were only permitted because of personal bias by the courts. There were no legal bases for permitting them. And the first wasn't passed until 1813. Not "at the time of the Constitution's ratification". Vermont, one of the safest states in the Union, has always had constitutional carry. The 2nd Amendment is the only one with absolute language like "shall not be infringed ", with no qualifications. If SCOTUS applied their own strict scrutiny standard to gun control laws, most would fail.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[domer76]

You have given any source, dumbshit.

I have no desire to do all your homework for you. Try to educate yourself for once, moron

Still haven’t read it, have you lazy ass?

You are really one stupid shitstain. What did you think I meant when I cited Heller?

Fucking illiterate idiot.

 

[domer76]

Again, the gun death rate was lower in those countries before guns were restricted. The restrictions didn't change anything. And most of the world demonstrates that restricting guns does nothing to make things better. You are deep in your wishful thinking, completely denying reality.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Cite your proof.

 

[domer76]

At the time of the Constitution's ratification, civilians could own field artillery. And concealment laws were only permitted because of personal bias by the courts. There were no legal bases for permitting them. And the first wasn't passed until 1813. Not "at the time of the Constitution's ratification". Vermont, one of the safest states in the Union, has always had constitutional carry. The 2nd Amendment is the only one with absolute language like "shall not be infringed ", with no qualifications. If SCOTUS applied their own strict scrutiny standard to gun control laws, most would fail.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

 

[rjhenn]

Cite your proof.

All you have to do is Google it. You have no proof that your wonderful gun control laws had any effect.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

Repetition, the 'proof' of fools.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[StoneByStone]

All you have to do is Google it. You have no proof that your wonderful gun control laws had any effect.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If you make a claim, it's on you to present the evidence.

 

[rjhenn]

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

And the only apparent effect of your wonderful "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools" has been to get kids killed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

If you make a claim, it's on you to present the evidence.

You and he are the ones claiming that gun control laws make things better. Yet you've got no evidence at all. Just places that didn't have a problem before and don't have one now. It's on you to present evidence that gun control laws have actually made a difference.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Cite your proof.

You're the one claiming that gun laws made a difference. Where's your proof?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk