Jump to content

What is better, no guns, or more guns?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I completely agree. So how? 

 

How about law enforcement (both local, state and federal) do their jobs? The guy in Maine was inpatient for 2 weeks, made threats to shoot up a National Guard... the guy in the Texas church shooting, he was dishonorably discharged from the Navy. Both should have not been able to own a firearm. LEO should have gone in and done something about that. 

 

There are THOUSANDS of gun laws in the country. How many more do we need? How about we enforce the ones we already have first? Start there?

Well, for one thing they can change the rules about honorable discharge is out of the military
 

I know several people they got honorable discharge is that didn’t deserve them. It’s much easier for the military just to give them a general or an honorable because it’s less paperwork. Got to stop that.

1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said:

You and yours support and cheere a tyrannical government. 

 

All day every day.  At every turn. 

 

We could cut the entire problem in half by just using the laws on the books.  

 

But 

 

 

I don’t think you understand what the word means
 

Travel outside the United States and then come back and talk to me

 

right now you’re just ignorant

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

What does your avatar mean.  Be clear...and there is no need in a civilized society for semi automatic weapons in the hands of the nonmilitary citizens.  Give me a reason.   To kill libs like me when the civil war starts?


You’d make an excellent Communist. Are you one?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

I think u have an anger issue...

 

do u agree wirth Scalias opinion?  pretty precise words....

 

I have anger issues because I own firearms and if someone broke into my house to hurt one of the people I love... I'd stop that threat... that means I have "anger issues". 

 

Well, if that's the case, I guess I do. 🙄

13 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Well, for one thing they can change the rules about honorable discharge is out of the military
 

I know several people they got honorable discharge is that didn’t deserve them. It’s much easier for the military just to give them a general or an honorable because it’s less paperwork. Got to stop that.

I don’t think you understand what the word means
 

Travel outside the United States and then come back and talk to me

 

right now you’re just ignorant

 

Ah, so that means more people will fall through the cracks that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. 

 

Great start to the conversation on how to stop these shootings. Maybe you can see how complicated it can get?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

Yea, "I don't want to understand how buying a firearm actually works... I'll just share cartoons that I'll believe are true." 

 

You're an idiot. You probably get your firearm info from The View. 


Sudafed is regulated more than guns.

 

Is this you?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BillStime said:


Sudafed is regulated more than guns.

 

Is this you?

 

 

 

 

So the Biden administration, YOUR chosen administration, seems to be the biggest proliferator of weapons on the planet and that's totally cool.

 

Yet you support some sort of obtrusive  gun control here at home? 

 

Now THATS mental illness 

Edited by TSOL
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear bombs and fighter jets eh? I see we've made it to the red herring stage of the debate. 

 

The limitations referenced by Scalia narrow the ruling to types or classes of arms (not jets or bombs) that would be commonly owned by citizens. The fact of the matter is that semiautomatic firearms are the most commonly owned class of firearm by citizens for the legal purpose of self defense thus they are protected by 2A. That's the end of the story. Unless you'd like to delve in the the Bruen decision which took Heller and strengthened the rights of the citizen even further by requiring a historical analog or precedent be available to justify any infringement. 

 

This sent NY in to such a frenzy they actually decided to try and use the historical precedent of disarming Native Americans as the justification for their unconstitutional edicts. 

 

"From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” the filing from the office of Attorney General Letitia James (D.) reads.

Edited by Pabstblueribbon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TSOL said:

 

 

So the Biden administration, YOUR chosen administration, seems to be the biggest proliferator of weapons on the planet and that's totally cool.

 

Yet you support some sort of obtrusive  gun control here at home? 

 

Now THATS mental illness 


No - mental illness is doing nothing o curb the slaughter of human life.

 

You can’t even go to Tops without getting your head blown off.

 

F that 

 

 

Edited by BillStime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BillStime said:


No - mental illness is doing nothing o curb the slaughter of human life.

 

Yiu can’t even go to Tops without getting your head blown off.

 

F that 

 

 

 

 

Yes you can, I go to Tops all the time and don't get my head blown off. 

 

Basically, you can't condemn the right for their stance on gun control when the left is proliferations weapons the way they are. Heck, our govt can pass the most basic legislation these days without the left attaching some war funding to it!

 

So stop crying about gun control, it makes you the poster boy for hypocrisy! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

Yes you can, I go to Tops all the time and don't get my head blown off. 

 

Basically, you can't condemn the right for their stance on gun control when the left is proliferations weapons the way they are. Heck, our govt can pass the most basic legislation these days without the left attaching some war funding to it!

 

So stop crying about gun control, it makes you the poster boy for hypocrisy! 

 

 

 

 

 

 


👆🤡

 

Hoax - all of it. 
 

You freaks even voted against funding for mental health.

 

GTFoH w this BS.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beast said:


Nah. You’re all about government/military rule.

I'm not.  but you better read up on communism.  I'm no communist.  I believe in meritocracy.

1 hour ago, Pabstblueribbon said:

he limitations referenced by Scalia narrow the ruling to types or classes of arms (not jets or bombs) that would be commonly owned by citizens. The fact of the matter is that semiautomatic firearms are the most commonly owned class of firearm by citizens for the legal purpose of self defense thus they are protected by 2A. That's the end of the story.

that's the end of the story til we expand and fill up SCOTUS with ethical, smart people....

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this is where the road ends. When forced to reconcile the fact that your solutions are untenable given the constraints set forth on the state by the highest law of the land your only remaining recourse is to undo those constraints. 

 

Stripping away more liberty from the individual via expanding and packing the supreme court with like minded ideologues who just so happen to share your view on what is "ethical". It's a very shortsighted game you're advocating for, given how quickly the winds of politics change. 

 

I guess we'll see how it all plays out!

 

Take care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Pabstblueribbon said:

I suppose this is where the road ends. When forced to reconcile the fact that your solutions are untenable given the constraints set forth on the state by the highest law of the land your only remaining recourse is to undo those constraints. 

 

Stripping away more liberty from the individual via expanding and packing the supreme court with like minded ideologues who just so happen to share your view on what is "ethical". It's a very shortsighted game you're advocating for, given how quickly the winds of politics change. 

 

I guess we'll see how it all plays out!

 

Take care


Roe is laughing at you - u fn hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...