there has to be plenty of other people you can go annoy.... I'm sure your list is long.... if not... do me a favor and just .. go play in traffic
Hillary wont be a friend of gun owners
- Thread starter Alanm
- Start date
He has made it very clear that he is an un-meetable asshole
You have proven over and over. You were born stupid, and never got any better. WTF?
You bashed this couple just as bad as you bashed us, about the same things. Sure hope we get to meet them. Don't care about meeting you, needle dick.
I don't the title of the post...never did perhaps it's just a conversation starter or maybe there are people who genuinely believe Hillary Rodham Clinton are against guns and the 2nd amendment which is absurd. She has never said once that she will try and take gun owners rights. Never ever nor in her current proposals has she stated that federal background checks or making it more difficult for certain individuals to get firearms; would be the prerequisite to end all gun rights. This hardlined partisan thinking is like a cancer spreading throughout the America psyche creating divisions and distrust. Being for smart sensible legislation about guns and being a gun owner does not have to be mutually exclusive
Yes she did. She just said the other day she wants to expand background checks and wants to make it harder for people to own "assault weapons"
They both said that during the debate
Last edited:
And I said to rid of gun owner rights or propose laws that subsequently will lead to removal of the 2nd amendment. That's what I was referring to. I swear every time it's mentioned there is the air of paranoia that big government will kick in the doors of everyday Americans and seize their guns.
And I said to rid of gun owner rights or propose laws that subsequently will lead to removal of the 2nd amendment. That's what I was referring to. I swear every time it's mentioned there is the air of paranoia that big government will kick in the doors of everyday Americans and seize their guns.
And I said to rid of gun owner rights or propose laws that subsequently will lead to removal of the 2nd amendment. That's what I was referring to. I swear every time it's mentioned there is the air of paranoia that big government will kick in the doors of everyday Americans and seize their guns.
You are not looking at the bigger picture.
Lets be honest here, With the current gun laws, shootings will continue to rise, even with stricter BG checks, shootings will continue, Ban AR's and shootings will continue - Look at how many mass shootings there have been where the shooter obtained the gun illegally vs legally. Shootings will ALWAYS be present as long as guns are on the street. Just like automobiles, no matter how safe you make them, as long as there are vehicle on the road there WILL BE deaths caused by them. As long as there are guns on the street, there WILL BE deaths caused by the shooter. Cars have come to such a high safety standard that the only real problem left is the driver. It is only now that we have begun the process of eliminating the human element. But, as stated earlier as long as there are vehicles on the road, there will be accidents. So even after we have a driver-less world, there will still be accidents that take human life. The only possible other solution is Vehicle removal.
Therefore, the current gun laws don't work so lets add more, when those don't work what then? We add more restrictions and law, and when those added don't work, what then? Pete and Re-Pete right? Every time there is a shooting gun laws and the 2nd amendment come under fire. Constant bombardment of the second amendment WILL EVENTUALLY lead to it's eradication as the ONLY solution to remove guns and gun violence from the streets, and as a result - confiscation.
With that said, I ask you what is YOUR level of tolerance? At what point are YOU willing to say we have enough gun laws and maybe it is time we start looking at the REAL problem. At what point do YOU say we have enough gun laws and we need to stop attacking the second amendment becasue "no one is trying to take your gun"? How many deaths per year are YOU willing to accept and say, OK, we have enough gun control. Given the facts, the ONLY way to eliminate gun violence is in fact to remove the gun.
If we as a country go after the real issue of what the problem is, we can drastically reduce gun violence and violence in general, but no one wants to address the real problems with our society. It is just easier to place blame.
And since we are on the subject, lets look at what Hillary actually says about gun control.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
The biggest issues I have with it is allowing people to sue the gun manufacture. Why should they be liable for what some wack job does? Oh right, it's always someone else fault, got it.
I also disagree with denying someone their right before committing a crime. i.e. so called "watch list". Will it come to a point that becasue little Johnny in 6th grade had a temper tantrum he is now on a violence watch list and denied his right to own a firearm?
So, can you answer the question above? Please don't give me the BS of how the 2nd amendment is outdated, or they were talking about muskets and sling shots and not AR's. Benjamin Franklin was a visionary, I really doubt our founding fathers thought we would never advance beyond the horse and buggy.
Well said two bi. And as you said is a societal problem. Folks take no personal responsibilty for anything anymore...its always somebody elses fault. Of course there is much more to it than just that....its the way ******* are being raised, its no respect for authority, its no or little education and the lack of job prospects and that only one side of it. Then you have the whole other mental health side of society. I actually saw a video one time about a young kid like 14 years old who stole a care and they interviewed his mom and she said well i guess they shouldnt have left the keys in the car.....really?
I hate guns
Thats OK. They are not for everyone. But i also know several people who thought the same thing until they spent some time around them and did some shooting. Have you ever tried that.
I agree with that... suing the manf is not the answer!
we have to do more than we are doing now.... I don't know what... but something... yes I am one of those against the military style weapons... see no need for civilians to have them.... but I also know that won't stop gun violence either.... it is something we as a society have created!
although some other countries still have hunting and no violence... but..?????
Yes I have but did not like it but everyone to there own
true...... but just like in the 60's and 70's when the speed limit was 75 and 80... they proved there was less fatalities by lowering the speed limit... didn't end the deaths... just less of them... same with guns.... do away with the autos... and just like when Clinton banned them... there was less deaths... didn't stop them.. just not as many!
there have always been laws and always been criminals that isn't going to change... but why make it easier for them
OMG! Are you serious? No one is taking the second amendment away. No one would go for that. The regulations are simply meant to make it more difficult for psychos to get guns to massacre people with.
Let me ask you something.....
Picture the latest massacre, the Orlando nightclub. If the guy had had a much smaller gun with many less bullets, would he have murdered as many as he did? Probably not. If his magazine had been smaller, someone might have been able to shoot him or even tackle him before he could have finished reloading.
Does anyone really need a machine gun to protect their home when a simple handgun might do it? Unless you just really, really, really want to shoot someone, NO!
Nobody said they are taking away the 2nd amendment completly....they dont have to.....they slowly add more and more laws until its effectively gone.
To answer your question about Orlando....yes its possible he could have killed just as many. Are you familiar with the Virginia Tech shooting. 2nd deadliest mass shooting in America and all that was used was a handgun.
Someone could have tackled him during his AR reload....a handgun is just a fast if not faster to change magazines.
Ummmm.....he didnt have a machine gun and nobody is advocating a machine gun for home defense.....a machine gun is fully automatic which is illegal without a permit.
Having a semi automatic assault weapon for home defense is totally reasonable and just having one doesnt mean i really really want to shoot someone.
Many people find it easier to shoot accurately then a large caliber handgun and the ballistics are better than a hangun. Not to mention the magazine capacity. Although it is more expensive to shoot and keep ammo for.
We have strict gun laws here our percentage of shooting is so so small hardly mention a comment no need for guns the problem over there is to have guns to protect yourself must mean a lot of idiots
Similar threads
