Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
clearly you're clueless as a 30rd magazine isnt for hunting deer, it's for
the protection of hits nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic and
here you are telling us that we shouldnt have a constitutional right to own
these firearms, that means you're unamerican, an enemy of the domestic variety

Quote:

the gun that killed those kids, and most of the guns involved in these kinds of shooting are not sporting nor good for self-defense. You don't have any 2nd ammendment right to these kinds of guns and they should be banned.

---

hahahaha... the gun that killed those kids was wielded by a mentally unstable
fuckhead, it's not the gun that did the killing, it's a person that did it,
and given that he was unstable and wanted to kill, what was to stop him from
building a bomb from plans he'd gotten from the internet... you dont have a
constitutional right to the internet but I do have a constitutional right to
fully automatic assault weapons with 9000 round magazines, bayonetlugs and
pistol grips, parkerized to be black or painted pink and the reason I know I
have that constitutional right is because I have those guns

I'm even going to buy my children some, I think my daughter will love this




then maybe get one like this for my son

Quote:

If you don't believe a gun ban would work, look at all the places in the world where it does.

---

you mean like in england? oh yeah, that worked pretty well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10219655

in fact because of the gun ban the UK has become a safe place, right ahead of south africa whom we already know ranks #1 in murder by firearm even though their laws are so restrictive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Quote:

The comparison to drug bans is an absurd analogy.

---

I dunno, it seems that when you look for real facts instead of reaching deep
into the bowels of Uranus for your 'gut feeling facts' then the two compare
quite well since it's clear that neither of them work especially since the
gun banning UK shows a 77% increase in murders, stabbings assaults and other
violent crimes

Quote:

There is no evidence that banning drugs has ever done much to control them, no society has succeeded in doing so. There is plenty of evidence that banning guns or at least severely limiting their availability because there a many societies that have very few gun deaths. Japan (historically, not the most peaceful people in the world) have strict gun controls and have an average of 20 gun deaths a year - proof that gun control works.

---

wow, so 20 gun deaths per year? seems you've drastically cut that number from
47, or maybe it was another you extracted from your ass. you dont find it
absolutely shocking that a country with an absolute ban on firearms, an
island nation with the tightest controls on not only the guns but also the
ports has had 47 firearm related murders when they should have none since
there are no guns in japan according to the gun ban? japan ranks #32 in
murder and they're known to lie to make the nation seem safer, they claim any
murder/suicide as all suicides. they reported 1,097 murders, only 47 by
firearm so it's god damned clear hat banning firearms only reduced the number
of firearm related violence but not the numbers of murders

---

elax420 said:

^Ya but you cant compare things like that without looking at the confounding variables as well.

---

koods said:

elax420 said:

^Ya but you cant compare things like that without looking at the confounding variables as well.

---

These countries are less violent. They have fewer guns. If you don't have guns available, it is simply harder to kill someone. Guns make killing so much easier, and possible from a distance. This is why pris wants them. Guns are the confounding variable. You know it. Pris knows it, he just doesn't give a shit because he needs his big boy toys.

---

Abuse said:

joe666 said:

My niece is 4 now.
I have a .22 rifle for her when she turns 7.

I was thinking of trading/selling it and getting one in pink for her. but I think I'll wait and see how girly she is @ 7.
she might hate the pink.

---

7, LOL. Too early for owning a gun, perhaps? Or do you live day to day with major risks all the time like this?

Come to think of it, I seem to associate your user name to hunting/ red neck style posts in the past. Oh well I'm obviously wasting my time here...

(BTW, I have no problem with hunting or being a red neck, just FYI.)

---

elax420 said:

Uber liberal harvard



Wasn't Romney a Harvard grad????


Oh sweet over generalize a generation. My guess is you're a baby boomer? ahhh the irony.

---

koods said:

elax420 said:

^Ya but you cant compare things like that without looking at the confounding variables as well.

---

These countries are less violent. They have fewer guns. If you don't have guns available, it is simply harder to kill someone. Guns make killing so much easier, and possible from a distance. This is why pris wants them. Guns are the confounding variable. You know it. Pris knows it, he just doesn't give a shit because he needs his big boy toys.

---

koods said:

Yes. When the facts do not comport with your opinions, you just say they are lying. Look, you can argue your position without having to make things up.

---

Quote:

it is completely disingenuous make the claims you are making. You are lying or you are misinformed. The murder rate in the UK is about 1/4 of the rate in the US (from all methods) the murder by gun rate is about 1/20 th the US rate.

---

Quote:

Every other civilized country in the world has lower rates. So what if SOME people are murdered by guns elsewhere, as if this proves gun control is a failure. That is a complete moronic way to assess the efficacy of a policy. "Oh, he got shot. Doesn't work. Bring back the guns"

---

Quote:

As for the consitutionality of those you have. No, you don't have a consitutional right to them. You have a legal right to have them, but the law on those can and will change as long  as people like yourself let other people shoot up schools with your guns.

---

Quote:

I've mentioned this a couple times, but you need to read heller, where that libtard Antonin Scalia says you only have a right to the most common form of guns and specifically says that there is no right miltary style weapons.

---

Quote:

As for the analogy with drugs. Drugs have a neurochemical effect of the brain, and this is why they are not like other things that people may want. Would there be a black market for gun. Of course, but the market will look nothing like, nor will it be an nearly ineleastic market like you have with drugs.

---

elax420 said:

What the hell is that list?

Still many republicans have attended Harvard. Shit i bet some of the biggest contributors to the party are harvard grads.

---

elax420 said:

Noo........

See this is what I'm talking about how the most extreme of the republicans hijack the party, isolate themselves, and alienate potential voters.

---

Prisoner#1 said:

elax420 said:

Noo........

See this is what I'm talking about how the most extreme of the republicans hijack the party, isolate themselves, and alienate potential voters.

---

you believe that romney is a conservative?

far from it. ron paul is conservative, mitt romney is barack obama, both moderate liberals

---

Ron paul is fucking nuts and shouldn't be considered in national politics at all

uh oh what have i done

elax420 said:

Ron paul is fucking nuts and shouldn't be considered in national politics at all

---

Prisoner#1 said:

elax420 said:

Ron paul is fucking nuts and shouldn't be considered in national politics at all

---

I'd vote ron paul simply because he's not obama/romney

---

I would in that regard as well

but he is hardly a serious candidate and if he were president i would consider emigration.


I voted for Peyton Manning