View Poll Results: What is our stance on gun control in general?

Voters
427. You may not vote on this poll
  • No gun control whatsoever.

    35 8.20%
  • As little gun control as possible.

    73 17.10%
  • Strict gun control.

    143 33.49%
  • Somewhere in between.

    103 24.12%
  • Ban it all together.

    54 12.65%
  • Not sure.

    2 0.47%
  • Don't care.

    17 3.98%
Page 75 of 169 FirstFirst ... 2550656667686970717273747576777879808182838485100125 ... LastLast
Results 1,481 to 1,500 of 3368

Thread: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

  1. #1481
    IlluminatiRex's Avatar Are you on the square?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illuminati Outpost #5123
    Posts
    3,693
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    In 2008 the supreme court ruled that the 2A refers to all citizens.


    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Landmark Decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
    I am the author of the "Weaker Towers" and "Officers Of" series of mods for Total War: Warhammer!
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Holmes
    One of the problems with trying to write about the First World War is that most people have already read Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, Pat Barker and Sebastian Faulks before you get to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Fisher
    Can the Army win the war before the Navy loses it?

  2. #1482
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    You are the one that kept replying. I said enforcement was a problem posts ago. And my original claim si still correct. The system is flawed.
    Actually, you said this:

    Thats the flaw. They don't consider mental health in background checks.

    and

    And guess what? Only 22 states have that. My state does not check mental health, only criminal background.
    This made it sound like the NICS doesn't check mental status but it does. This is why there was a misunderstanding. All states check mental health records as part of the NICS. The problem is the NICS isn't getting the information. The laws are adequate, the states need to follow them.
    Last edited by Irishman; December 18, 2012 at 02:42 PM.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  3. #1483
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    But they do, all states check mental health records as part of the NICS. The problem is the NICS isn't getting the information. The laws are adequate if states would follow them.
    And who gives the NICS the information? the states. What happens when the states do not give the NICS information on a person's mental health? No background check on a person's mental health because there is no record in the system. Thus its flawed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    The state does not conduct 4473 the federal government does. It is a federal database, which is why they are called federal firearms license dealers. The state can require extra measure such as waiting periods, but they are not the ones who get called in for the background check, that is the BATFE.
    And who enters information into the federal database? The states. And what happens when my states does not enter mental health information into the federal database? They can't conduct background checks on my mental health because no record exists. System flawed.
    Best/Worst quotes of TWC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    While you are at it, allow Germany to rearm, it's not like they committed the worst atrocity in modern history, so having a strong army can't lead to anything pitiful.

  4. #1484
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    What happens when the states do not give the NICS information on a person's mental health?
    After VT they are supposed to lose %5 of funding.

    No background check on a person's mental health because there is no record in the system.
    Insufficient record-keeping doesn't mean they are not looking for those records. There still is a mental health check.

    Thus its flawed.
    Yes. The enforcement and compliance is flawed, the laws are not. If the government were serious about enforcing these laws, they would work perfectly.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  5. #1485
    Valiant Champion's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    5,443

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    you have to be determined by a court judge that you are a danger to yourself and others or not able to manage your own affairs.

    You can't be kept from buying a gun just because you are on meds and getting treatment for psychiatric condition.

    seems pretty fair to me the way it stands.

    BETTER PIKES
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...2#post16143112

    THE PIKE WARS HAVE BEGUN!

  6. #1486
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    Insufficient record-keeping doesn't mean they are not looking for those records. There still is a mental health check.
    On what? The records aren't there. There is nothing to check.


    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    Yes. The enforcement and compliance is flawed, the laws are not. If the government were serious about enforcing these laws, they would work perfectly.
    I never said the laws were flawed. I said the system was. And it obviously is.
    Best/Worst quotes of TWC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    While you are at it, allow Germany to rearm, it's not like they committed the worst atrocity in modern history, so having a strong army can't lead to anything pitiful.

  7. #1487

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelgoog View Post
    OMFG are you seriously on the militia bandwagon still? Where is your evidence.
    Whoa whoa whoa buddy, 4 out of 5 of those intellectual heavyweights on the SC are on that bandwagon, show some respect! And indeed, the SC said that was the case for the last 130 years, since it first ruled on the issue in 1876! Bandwagon indeed.

    Even the brady campaign has stopped trying to push the militia argument because it is a dead issue.
    It's been ruled on, so there is nothing they can do on it unless it goes before the SC again.

    Stop telling me your baseless opinions and show me evidence to support them, because all you seem to do is ignore the mountains of evidence constantly posted against you in these threads while showing nothing in return. I am beginning to think you are a parrot who can type.
    Read the dissent in Heller and McDonalds, those are the base of my opinions, and they are much more convincing than the majority was.

    The reason I haven't responded to your arguments on this particular point is that it's pointless. When arguing over what the Founders intended, it's a fairly subjective task that can be fit to any point. There is no good way to test it, no way at all really. So I try to argue from the practical point of view, like, if the right was meant to protect us from tyranny, how does it actually do so? If it doesn't, then what is the point of the right? Was it ever really a right?

    It seems incredibly hard to believe that the Second Amendment would be written like this:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    With the primary meaning being that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. It makes no sense. Why would they even have the "well regulated militia" portion in there at all? It's not necessary, it doesn't say states have a right to a militia, it would just be fluff, meaningless fluff at that. I really don't read into it that the right to bear arms is about preventing tyranny from your own government, but hell it's ambiguous enough you COULD read it that way, I just think that's not the most obvious way to read it all. It's about having militias at a time when states provided most of their own protection and there was almost no federal military at all, and things were far from secure as well, what with the frontier and imperal powers sniffing around.

    Indeed, SC cases came to just this conclusion over and over and over for the last 130 years, and it was THIS SC, headed by some serious s, that overturned these rulings by one vote. You can read about the evolution of the SC here:

    http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-bear-...amendment.html

    Basically, as the significance of militias in the US dropped, the meaning changed towards more individual gun rights. Funny how the conservative judges are now those dreaded "activist judges" overturning precedent on a whim.

  8. #1488

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not


    Well that changes things.

    A) Sounds as if the courts did not notify the police of his injunction which means that there was nothing in his record which would have been been red flagged during a background check by the BATFE.

    B) The failure was on virginia court systems not the feds.


    A big issue right now has been between the states and feds on gun rights. Technically if you buy a firearm made in your state, you are not subject to federal firearms regulations. This is because the only way the feds can enforce these regulations is back dooring it through interstate commerce. If the gun never left your state then the feds have no power to enforce it.

    Technically I could build a machine gun and the feds can't touch me. However no one wants to be the first one to take this to court as it would require risking a very long time in prison if you lose. Several states have already said they would not prosecute people individual manufacturers. The fight is basically over the feds using whatever backdoor means they can to bully the states around despite the fact that they were not supposed to have that power in the constitution.

    So that is why we have any gun control laws in the first place, which technically we should not. It all falls back to the original supreme court cases in which the govt was given the power to level taxes and through that precedent the federal government has gained huge amounts of power.

  9. #1489
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Gelgoog are you basically saying there should be "NO gun control laws"?

  10. #1490
    Marines's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fort Riley, KS
    Posts
    173

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    This is a terrible tragedy, no doubt. That said, I wasn't born in the United States, I immigrated following 9/11 to join the Armed Forces. Therefore, my experience with firearms was rather limited in my native country (New Zealand) and had little if any time spent handling them. Now I own several, including a SCAR-17S, a FNP-9, and what is irking me is the media response to this horrendous event. They are constantly utilizing the phrase "these guns killed these people", and while they are correct that they were the instruments used, they weren't the conductor.

    An inanimate object such as a firearm can't function as intended without its operator. Following their thought process, then my car is responsible for me speeding. I'll have to tell the police officer to write the ticket to my car next time I'm pulled over.

    These media outlets seem overtly focused upon the weapons utilized and not the core issues, that being mental health and piss poor parental responsibility.

  11. #1491

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    Gelgoog are you basically saying there should be "NO gun control laws"?
    Until 2008, the SC had always said (for 130 years) the 2nd Amendment was about militias. But under the interpretation that it's about individual rights to own "arms", hell, you would have to take that position to be logically consistent.

    Course, the SC didn't do that, they went with the old circular logic, even tried to distinguish between arms, it was a sad sight to see. You can regulate guns they said, sorta, for some things, maybe. It makes no sense, it was the crappiest opinion I've read in a while, and it should be overturned.

  12. #1492

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Marines View Post
    ...

    An inanimate object such as a firearm can't function as intended without its operator. Following their thought process, then my car is responsible for me speeding. I'll have to tell the police officer to write the ticket to my car next time I'm pulled over.

    ...
    What intentions are there for a firearm? I'd think it's mainly about drilling a certain amount of kinetic energy into a target. So a BB gun is a little less problematic than a Barret anti material rifle. And well, usually formula 1 cars are banned from driving on roads. None cares about your Toyota.
    "Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
    Mangalore Design

  13. #1493

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthias View Post
    It seems incredibly hard to believe that the Second Amendment would be written like this:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    With the primary meaning being that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. It makes no sense. Why would they even have the "well regulated militia" portion in there at all? It's not necessary, it doesn't say states have a right to a militia, it would just be fluff, meaningless fluff at that. I really don't read into it that the right to bear arms is about preventing tyranny from your own government, but hell it's ambiguous enough you COULD read it that way, I just think that's not the most obvious way to read it all. It's about having militias at a time when states provided most of their own protection and there was almost no federal military at all, and things were far from secure as well, what with the frontier and imperal powers sniffing around.

    The original drafts were written in language that could have been used to pigeon hole gun owners in the future.

    "On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[82] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[83] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[84]

    The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:"

    There was no debate among the founders whether civilians should have personal ownership of firearms, that was a foregone conclusion. The only debate among them was who should control the militas.

    That's that thing, I do not have guess what the founders meant.

    "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
    ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    "The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
    ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.


    Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:

    "[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."


    More quotes from the Virginia convention:

    "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
    ---George Mason


    READ THEM, they tell you exactly why the consititution was worded the way it was. Militia were included because of the fear of a standing army being used at the behest of a tyrannt, just like King George. Individual ownership of firearms is key as the only way you can disarm the militia is by confiscating the private arms of freemen.

    Dissenting opinions do not mean in the SC, this is the law of the land:

    In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.


    So as I said, what the founders had to say on the issue is important because when you are the supreme court whose job it is to interpret constitutional law via looking at intend, then you do that by reading old documents and finding context. They found that through the actual meaning of the words in the document during the time period it was wrote as well as the writings of the founders that the militia clause is separate from the private ownership of arms.


    Edit:

    Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)

    "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government. "
    Last edited by Gelgoog; December 18, 2012 at 03:30 PM.

  14. #1494

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    None of what you wrote was remotely persuasive. You do a few quotes and say that represents the "Founder's" opinions? Laughable. And none of them say you should have an individual right to a gun, and nearly ALL are mentioning militias. And 130 years of SC precedent, you know, the intellectuals you so look up to? No response from you, and no surprise. And yes, it matters that 4 out of 5 dissented. And they do mean jack squat, because you see, they are the basis for overturning embarassingly stupid opinions such as these.

    The SC of 1876 read the Founders, as did several SC's after them, and they ALL disagreed with you, and so did 4 of 5 this latest time around. That's what happens when you get some stupid sons of up there with their political ideologies though.

  15. #1495
    IlluminatiRex's Avatar Are you on the square?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illuminati Outpost #5123
    Posts
    3,693
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthias View Post
    None of what you wrote was remotely persuasive. You do a few quotes and say that represents the "Founder's" opinions? Laughable. And none of them say you should have an individual right to a gun, and nearly ALL are mentioning militias. And 130 years of SC precedent, you know, the intellectuals you so look up to? No response from you, and no surprise. And yes, it matters that 4 out of 5 dissented. And they do mean jack squat, because you see, they are the basis for overturning embarassingly stupid opinions such as these.

    The SC of 1876 read the Founders, as did several SC's after them, and they ALL disagreed with you, and so did 4 of 5 this latest time around. That's what happens when you get some stupid sons of up there with their political ideologies though.
    The militia back during the founding years of the U.S was any white male. That was the militia, the people.
    I am the author of the "Weaker Towers" and "Officers Of" series of mods for Total War: Warhammer!
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Holmes
    One of the problems with trying to write about the First World War is that most people have already read Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, Pat Barker and Sebastian Faulks before you get to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Fisher
    Can the Army win the war before the Navy loses it?

  16. #1496

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthias View Post
    Whoa whoa whoa buddy, 4 out of 5 of those intellectual heavyweights on the SC are on that bandwagon, show some respect! And indeed, the SC said that was the case for the last 130 years, since it first ruled on the issue in 1876! Bandwagon indeed.
    4 out of 5? Let's have some intellectual honesty. If the number were that one sided, the Heller case would've ruled very differently. 4 out of 9 is more accurate.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  17. #1497

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    4 out of 5? Let's have some intellectual honesty. If the number were that one sided, the Heller case would've ruled very differently. 4 out of 9 is more accurate.
    Haha, whoops, true enough, if only it were 4 out of 5... Court shrinking anyone?

  18. #1498

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthias View Post
    It seems incredibly hard to believe that the Second Amendment would be written like this:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    With the primary meaning being that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. It makes no sense. Why would they even have the "well regulated militia" portion in there at all? It's not necessary, it doesn't say states have a right to a militia, it would just be fluff, meaningless fluff at that. I really don't read into it that the right to bear arms is about preventing tyranny from your own government, but hell it's ambiguous enough you COULD read it that way, I just think that's not the most obvious way to read it all. It's about having militias at a time when states provided most of their own protection and there was almost no federal military at all, and things were far from secure as well, what with the frontier and imperal powers sniffing around.
    It is fluff. The first part of it literally has no bearing on the second.

    George Washington being a BAMF with a very large penis, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Lizardmen being the ultimate rulers of the world, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


    The amendment says that is the right of the people, there's no buts about it. Sure, they could repeal it if they get enough people to vote on it, same as they can do any other amendment, doesn't make it any less clear.
    "People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson


    In Soviet Russia you want Uncle Sam.

  19. #1499

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Quote Originally Posted by Surgeon View Post
    It is fluff. The first part of it literally has no bearing on the second.
    Yeah that's convincing.

  20. #1500

    Default Re: The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

    Gun laws are fine and could perhaps even be relaxed (more CCW exemptions). Look at terrorists. They're motivated, organized and would clearly be looking for the least line of resistance to causing as much damage to America and her citizens. If guns were so easy to obtain why wouldn't they just purchase some "assault weapons" and shoot up a mall? Yet they seem only interested in suicide bombing and smuggling explosive fluid and bombs in their underwear onto planes. The last major terrorist event on American soil was a Muslim US Army Major going on a shooting rampage, who would naturally have access to those weapons. What's more scary? An underwear bomber or four Arabs with rifles trapping everyone in a school and systematically executing them?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •