What's new
By:

Welcome to 'Murica

Howard said:
Sooooo...knives, axes, bats, tire irons? Bows and arrows? I mean, I can use a lot of things to inflict damage. Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
You missed the part where he said expressly designed.
Axes were designed for chopping wood, bats were designed for hitting baseball's, tire irons were designed for removing tires from automobiles (iirc)

Guns are made for killing things.

Knives and bows and arrows, might fall into the category though. With the difference being the efficiency of killing with those two weapons is much lower than that of a gun
 
Go to Youtube and search for Jim Jefferies gun control and watch the first video that come up. (its about 16 minutes)
Pretty funny, has some swearing though.
 
So i always hear that we have the second ammendment so that if the government were to become tyrannical then we could fight them.
Then i always hear the gun control crowd say that we (regular civilians) would get our butts kicked because the goverment would have the military. The military has guns, tanks, missles, drones, bombs, fighter jets, helicopters, etc.
Then i always hear the gun advocate crowd say that the military would not kill american civilians so that would never happen.
Well if thats true and the military would never kill innocent american civilians then we dont need to worry about a tyrannical government right? If the military wouldn't back the governments play anyway then they are not a threat imo.

Also that comedian made a good point about the whole black market argument. He said that a gun that can be bought in america for 1000 dollars from wallmart would be much harder to find in the black market and would cost 34,000 dollars.
 
Unfortunately Fish the military, like the general public, are made up of individuals and they all have their own opinions.

I'd say there would be a split in the military tbh. Some would and some wouldn't support a hostil take over. But unforgivably there is the ATF, border patrol, FBI, CIA, DHS, DEA, OIG...

But I think in a hostile take over people would need to be armed because law would to to crap and criminals would trive for a time.

Not to mention the obvious battles and need to self protect.
 
Looks like the shootings were not, despite what Mike Huckabee wants you to think, targeted at Christians. At least, according to this report:

"McGowan told family members that the gunman didn't specifically target Christians but asked them about faith. The shooter, apparently planning to die during the massacre, told students: "I'll see you soon" or "I'll meet you soon.""

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-...f/2015/10/gunman_in_oregon_college_shoot.html
 
Last edited:
BabyPeterzz said:
This is not up for debate. But OL's statement is, apparently.

Kinda ****ed up if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's debatable actually in the sense that we do. Where the debate is, IMO, is where does one right stop and he other begin?

I think the NRA and gun banners are both extremes and out of touch. So where should the line be drawn?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJF
I made it all the way to page 8 before I decided enough was enough. Judas, some of you have your heads so far up your *** you can taste your tonsils. Let me break this down for you tards:

Guns don't kill people.
Angry people kill people.
Stupid people kill people.
People who want attention kill people.

Banning guns would be the stupidest thing since prohibition, only ten trillion times more idiotic.

If we're really reaching for reasons why the USA has all of these mass shootings, let me give you an example of why it really happens: As I drove around last Thursday, listening to every station on the radio blabbing on and on about the shooting, the chick on KSL pulled the classic 'Murica. "The shooter, who has been identified as Chris Harper-Mercer, killed 9 and injured 7. The parents of the victims (and others I don't remember) have asked that we do not identify the shooter by name, so that we can focus on the tragedy and victims rather than giving all of the attention to the maniac, which is exactly what he wanted." That is paraphrased, but the beginning was exactly how it went. She said the killers name, followed by the quote of being asked not to use the shooters name.

THAT is why we have mass shootings. Reality TV, the Kardashians, The Real Housewives of WhoGivesA****, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., etc.. It's all about getting your five minutes of fame. It's all about America's hunger for all things "reality", and their insatiable lust for divisive politics. Why just kill yourself, where nobody but your mom and few friends will care, when you can kill a bunch of people and go down in history? I must've seen four different news casts talking about Columbine this week, and of course, they talked about nothing more than Dylan Klybold and Eric Harris. For a million dollars, can anyone here name ONE SINGLE VICTIM of the Columbine shooting? Nope. But you better believe we all know who the shooters were.

So there you have it. Blame guns all you want, but the truth is, the blame lies with all of us. Go to your DVR and delete all that horrible **** that you indulge on. Stop listening to blowhards like Hannity, Rush, Olberman, Savage, etc. Stop giving these *** holes exactly what they want, which is media, media, media. Attention, attention, attention. Me, me, me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top