More restrictions? Keep it as it is?
Lets contain the discussion to one thread.
Printable View
More restrictions? Keep it as it is?
Lets contain the discussion to one thread.
"Americans" on "Buildings"
10k deaths a year from homicide by firearm,
190k deaths from medical malpractice
:goodone:
all 4chan's fault
the guns aren't the problem, the press is. they glorify these assholes and make sure the whole country knows their names, and the next time some psychopath finally snaps, instead of just killing himself he tries to rack up the body count so he can be remembered too
I'm fine with it as long as it's directed towards the right people
its the job of the press these days to keep the minorities at war with each other and everyone against the white middle class and above so nobody will really get together and do shit about how fucked the government is
I wish these shooters would target the media more and be clear that its totally because they are full of shit
When obongo stops bombing hospitals I'll stop owning small arms. (Aka never)
but guns are outlawed in australia since like last century jim jefferies said so
guns are not the problem, the problem is shit parents raising shit stain children. People kill people.
shit offspring = lisa, stevey, mike plug drug. Their parents failed at the starting gate, their genetic addmix should have been exorcised on day one and passed off as a crib death.
Plug drug get out and stay at lisanet where mental disorders and homosexuality run rampant
since its only ever men that go on shooting sprees and always for male centric reasons like virgin rage I think it should be illegal for men to own guns but legal for women to own guns no matter their history since women who are ex cons or mentally unwell need even more than the average woman to defend herself from male violence and it should be legal to shoot men for unwanted touching of any kind since a man touching a woman could snap to lethal violence in a millisecond and also for any sort of threat such as cat calling or rape threats online even years after they are made since they are proving themselves as a danger to her
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v6.../09katesig.gif
this might be controversial, but fuck it... i am against it.
im also against gun violence
I think we're pretty well fucked here in America, just because there's so many guns per-capita.
All laws and regulations do, is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting armed. If someone's gonna go 'cidal, they're obviously not concerned with gun laws at all, and will get armed regardless.
Maybe tax the hell outta bullets... spree's would be less likely if it's $100/shot.
I'm all for the second amendment... but our founding fathers used muskets, not AR-15's and automatics.
"Hold on everyone... this spree will continue in 5 minutes once I finish reloading. Stay there plz."
Swords are more my style... that takes skill to slaughter 100's of people with a greatsword.
why not lightsabers?
actually it was put in place to establish a militia to defend our country against (the british, etc)
it says that in itself
it is literally qualified by the whole "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part, saying that it guarantees weapons for everyone all the time with no restrictions is like saying the sentence "when our work is finished we will all go home for the day" means everyone gets to go home right now! if you ignore the first dependent clause, the rest of the sentence loses its intended meaning. what is a militia? basically by today's standards it would be the national guard.
so the second amendment protects the right of National Guard members to have guns. :tup:
this is just an argument I use against people who shield their beliefs in the Constitution. I dont actually care what the Constitution or the bill of rights says because it was written by guys who wore powdered wigs
that's a stupid argument, the supreme court exists to interpret the constitution (which regardless of how long ago it was written still remains the law of the land) and they ruled that it applies to individuals
whether or not you agree with their decisions they're still the law.
as for citizens united that's only stupid if you look at it through the liberal talk-show spin of "DURR CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE ROFL" what it actually said was that corporations are made up of people who have the same right of free speech as anyone else regardless of what groups they happen to belong to, which by any metric makes total sense
if the kkk nambla and the aryan brotherhood are protected under the first amendment then so is time warner