Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

domer76 said:
:lolup:

Yeah, I’m going to do that for you, you fucking moron.

What a fucking fool. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

So no proof of your assertion, you fucking moron.

What a fucking fool.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
domer76 said:
I’ve been more crime scenes and seen more gun violence than I’d like to count. Unlike you, I don’t post out of ignorance. I post out of experience and knowledge.

Fucking punk
Click to expand...

No, I've seen more crime scenes and seen more gun violence then you would like to count.

Unlike you I don't post out of ignorance; because I post out of experience and knowledge.

You fucking punk.
 
StoneByStone said:
This article is acknowledging that there was a drop in violent crime after the ban, but questioning if there were other factors involved. Sure, there might have been, but there are always other factors involved. It seems like it's just trying to negate the fact that the new gun control did help.
Click to expand...

Note that the violent crime rate was dropping before the 'ban' and continued to drop at the same rate after the 'ban', which wasn't a ban. So, no evidence that the NFA had any effect at all.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
domer76 said:
When were schools not gun free? There were never any guns in the schools I ever attended.

What a stupid fucking question. Is that the tyoe of logic your mommy taught you in homeschool?
Click to expand...

In many parts of the country it was not unusual to have actual classes in shooting, which usually had kids bringing their own guns from home. They would even ride the subway with their guns in NYC. In other cases, kids would take guns to school so they could go hunting after school. Schools became gun free with the passage of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. It's after that that mass school shootings really took off.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
domer76 said:
Sure haven’t, dumbfuck. I’m just reflecting reality from experience. And here you are, trying to argue out of ignorance
Click to expand...
Nope it's quite clear that you are totally paranoid about guns. Completely unable to deal with reality.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
In many parts of the country it was not unusual to have actual classes in shooting, which usually had kids bringing their own guns from home. They would even ride the subway with their guns in NYC. In other cases, kids would take guns to school so they could go hunting after school. Schools became gun free with the passage of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. It's after that that mass school shootings really took off.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Don't expect domer to acknowledge this; because he evidently believes that prior to the gun ban zones, everything was unicorns and rainbows.
 
domer76 said:
Asked and answered, stupid shit.

Learn English.
Click to expand...
Your answer didn't actually answer the question. Again, nothing but bad logic, wishful thinking and childish insults. You appear to be incapable of adult conversation


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
domer76 said:
Quite a few in the day, which forced the National Firearms Act.

I understand why you don’t want to respond.
Click to expand...
Actually, not that many. It was the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, with 7 dead, that was behind the restrictions on machine guns. Then, despite there being fewer than 5 deaths from legally possessed machine gun fire in the intervening 50 years, civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1996 was essentially banned.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
domer76 said:
I keep trying to educate you, dumbfuck homeschool, but it doesn’t take.

The original wording, by Madison, of the second, included a conscientious objector clause. There’s only one reason to allow one to opt out of having to train or use a weapon. That’s in the context of a military use.
There’s your grammar, homeschool.
Click to expand...
More delusion. According to:

The right to keep and bear arms: report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session:

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
Of course, you, like all control freaks, deny even the possibility of carrying firearms in a peaceful manner, which is probably true of you and your ilk.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
StoneByStone said:
Yes, I didn't just tell you to google it. I said I was unaware of any studies on the issue, but if I had to guess, shorter magazines would make it harder to kill more people.
Click to expand...
A guess based upon complete ignorance. Typical.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
StoneByStone said:
I did debunk it, that's when you started sperging out.



I didn't start name-calling, you did. And I didn't even sink to your level, I just left the discussion.
Click to expand...
Can't handle it when it isn't you doing the name calling?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
domer76 said:
I’ve been more crime scenes and seen more gun violence than I’d like to count. Unlike you, I don’t post out of ignorance. I post out of experience and knowledge.

Fucking punk
Click to expand...
Basically, you just cleaned up the mess afterwards, right?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
You were there?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

lol

What a fucking moron. Most were farmers, idiot. Hard to farm with a musket over your shoulder. Do you think the city dwellers packed all the time?

You are the biggest fool on the forum, homeschool
 
rjhenn said:
More delusion. According to:

The right to keep and bear arms: report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session:

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
Of course, you, like all control freaks, deny even the possibility of carrying firearms in a peaceful manner, which is probably true of you and your ilk.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This was the original language by Madison. Have a literate person explain itvto you homeschool.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top