Guns

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Back on topic would be answering Houston must pay for Chicago's violence with restrictive gun laws that do not work?



FDR was a socialist BTW. A poor champion of the electorate, a great champion of big oppressive government - and government is NOT the people. They are faceless APPOINTED bureaucrats with no accountability to the electorate.

And as such need to be kept as small and only permitted sufficient authority to execute the task at hand. We have however expanded the power of the federal Government so far now that the entrenched bureaucracy is the real problem.

EPA, Department of Education, ATF are prime examples.

Chicago is a drop of water in an Olympic sized pool when it comes to gun deaths in this country. So Houston wouldn't be paying for the sins of my fellow Chicagoans but rather the sins of the entire country. Stop singling out Chicago as this wierd place where people get shot. We are far from the only city in this country with that.
FDR got us out of the GD. It wasn't by bailing out banks and giving subsidies to corporations I can tell you that.

 

[Tornado]

By declaring war on Japan?

 

[RC45]

Chicago is a drop of water in an Olympic sized pool when it comes to gun deaths in this country. So Houston wouldn't be paying for the sins of my fellow Chicagoans but rather the sins of the entire country. Stop singling out Chicago as this wierd place where people get shot. We are far from the only city in this country with that.

I think you may be confusing blunt force trauma and drowning and car accidents here.

Those events kill far more people than guns ever do.

FDR got us out of the GD. It wasn't by bailing out banks and giving subsidies to corporations I can tell you that.

No, FDR did not get the USA out of the Great depression, in fact, his actions prolonged it substantially - World War II got the USA out of the Great Depression.

A full on WWIII might have helped the USA 15 years ago, but we are not quite lone top dog anymore, so an all out WWIII with all our manufacturing off shored in China might quite possible help topple the USA.

Maybe that is the real plan after all, but that's another topic all together.

 

[Exorcet]

Why does the 2nd amendment hold more weight than any other amendment? Why is it infallible?

It's not particularly special. However gun ownership is a form of property rights. There is no reason needed to own something, so there is no reason needed to acquire a gun. Why would there be? It's the same for any kind of property. Asking "why should you be allowed to have that kind of thing?" is a waste of breath. It's a completely invalid question.

Why are regulations

They are arbitrary and not always helpful. In many cases, it's basically one group asking for something at the expense of someone else. Sometimes it's stated to be the right thing to do because lives may be saved, but saving 10 people is not worth risking 1. So even if a gun ban did reduce deaths by some amount, you can't justify the ban because you've also taken away a means of defense from someone.

background checks

Perfectly fine

Why is the government the devil?

It's not, but it should not overstep its boundaries. Democracy doesn't make tyranny any more appealing. Voting away rights is the same as taking them by force. I think Democracy is very poorly understood in many countries, the US being no exception. The majority doesn't seem to realize it leads to the same thing as a dictatorship, the main difference being more dictators.

Instead of forcing people to behave how you them to, you can instead work with them to find a suitable arrangement for you and them. You're not guaranteed to get what you want, but then it's the same case right now.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

I think you may be confusing blunt force trauma and drowning and car accidents here.

Those events kill far more people than guns ever do.


No, FDR did not get the USA out of the Great depression, in fact, his actions prolonged it substantially - World War II got the USA out of the Great Depression.

A full on WWIII might have helped the USA 15 years ago, but we are not quite lone top dog anymore, so an all out WWIII with all our manufacturing off shored in China might quite possible help topple the USA.

Maybe that is the real plan after all, but that's another topic all together.

A majority of homicides are committed with a firearm at around 8500. 19k people in 2010 killed themselves with a gun in 2010. Car accidents barely out number that, and even then a majority of car accident deaths aren't because the person tried to kill someone else.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

It's not particularly special. However gun ownership is a form of property rights. There is no reason needed to own something, so there is no reason needed to acquire a gun. Why would there be? It's the same for any kind of property. Asking "why should you be allowed to have that kind of thing?" is a waste of breath. It's a completely invalid question.


They are arbitrary and not always helpful. In many cases, it's basically one group asking for something at the expense of someone else. Sometimes it's stated to be the right thing to do because lives may be saved, but saving 10 people is not worth risking 1. So even if a gun ban did reduce deaths by some amount, you can't justify the ban because you've also taken away a means of defense from someone.


Perfectly fine


It's not, but it should not overstep its boundaries. Democracy doesn't make tyranny any more appealing. Voting away rights is the same as taking them by force. I think Democracy is very poorly understood in many countries, the US being no exception. The majority doesn't seem to realize it leads to the same thing as a dictatorship, the main difference being more dictators.

Instead of forcing people to behave how you them to, you can instead work with them to find a suitable arrangement for you and them. You're not guaranteed to get what you want, but then it's the same case right now.

According to your logic then why does the government have a right to say civilians can't own automatic rifles? It's property after all? I'm not tryin to vote to take away every gun, but to reduce the need for them and the sale of them via random people. You shouldn't be able to buy a gun from a gun convention and you should need more hours in training to get a gun. The gun argument dosent make the same sense today as the constitution words in back then.

 

[Exorcet]

According to your logic then why does the government have a right to say civilians can't own automatic rifles?

It doesn't.

I'm not tryin to vote to take away every gun, but to reduce the need for them and the sale of them via random people.

This can be done without government regulation though, and it might even end up taking effect faster. What if people in a city decided on a set of good rules for gun sales and then supported businesses that followed those rules. You'd give an economic edge to those businesses and naturally they should do better than those that aren't supported.

I'll admit that the US wouldn't start doing this on a large scale overnight, so it's not like going down this path will lead to utopia tomorrow. However the current legal system provides problems for both sides. Ideas that you don't agree with can be voted into law, and then you're stuck with them. You're also paying for them.

You shouldn't be able to buy a gun from a gun convention and you should need more hours in training to get a gun. The gun argument dosent make the same sense today as the constitution words in back then.

I'm not arguing from the Constitution, though in terms of then and now, people are still in need of self defense. A gun is a good tool for that. It works on a personal level and on a national level (armed rebels that give modern militaries so much trouble are basically the same as an armed civilian population acting in self defense).

There are plenty of things that are dangerous, yet don't involve a rigorous training program. We have people shining lasers into the eyes of pilots trying to land, but you can still pick them up pretty easily. High powered cars require nothing more to operate than a regular vehicle. There are even flashlights you can use to start fires and blind people



Why are guns special?

According to this, gravity is more likely to kill you than guns:

http://www.medhelp.org/general-health/articles/The-25-Most-Common-Causes-of-Death/193?page=3

I've never been to a class about falling.

I think a lot of the noise made about guns comes from bias. Yes, having them available does sometimes let them fall into the wrong hands, but they're hardly the cause of all the world's problems and it's certainly not a one sided deal. The reason why "good guys" want them as well is because they have their benefits.

 

[jimipitbull]

Condescend much? I believe this post qualifies as insulting under the broad interpretation permitted under AUP.

Can you show the exact clause of the AU page you are referring to?

How many guns did you offer up for buy back in the late 1990's?

None. The only guns I have ever owned are nail guns - they are necessary tools for my trade. I have certification as an operator of powder actuated tools.

I'm curious, in the US, is it easier to legally buy a firearm, than it is to legally operate a powder actuated nail gun? https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25308

 

[RC45]

Can you show the exact clause of the AU page you are referring to?

No need, apparently I just need to post a link.

None. The only guns I have ever owned are nail guns - they are necessary tools for my trade. I have certification as an operator of powder actuated tools.

I'm curious, in the US, is it easier to legally buy a firearm, than it is to legally operate a powder actuated nail gun? https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25308

So as a long time anti-gunner you have all this pent up bias and have found an easy outlet - GTPlanet.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, right after Freedom of Speech and way before the rest of those other specifically enumerated rights we hold dear, is the right to keep and bear arms - nothing about nail driving equipment. Not sure how much more clear to make it.


Now with regard to OSHA, they can regulate who may operate anything in a commercial fashion all they want, but they have no say in how and where I operate my powder-actuated tool in my private capacity.

See, if I wanted to serve as a member of a VIP Security detail in a professional capacity, I would be required to meet specific requirements of the city, county and state I operated in.

But then again, my being armed with a sub machine gun as a VIP Security operator does not fall under the 2nd Amendment either.

You asked previously how many assault rifles I own. None, it is rather expensive to buy a transferable pre-1986 select fire FN or AK or AR. Between $16,000 and $30,000 depending on model and condition. Even a Tommy gun can run you $35,000 or more. Supply and demand you see, there are a finite supply of registered transferable automatic weapons in circulation.

Now machine pistols like Mac 10 & 11's, TEC 9's etc. are cheaper, but still in the $7,000 to $15,000 range.

I have had a number of semi-auto AK's, AR's, Mini-14's and some others. We normally buy them enjoy a couple for a season or 2 then sell them on and buy different ones.

According to your logic then why does the government have a right to say civilians can't own automatic rifles? It's property after all?

And you would be wrong.

Civilians can and do own automatic and select fire weapons. Before 1934 you could buy them at a hardware store. Since 1934 you have had to apply for a transfer tax stamp, pay the tax and file the transfer of ownership with the ATF.

In 1986 the arbitrary legislative decision was made that no new select fire weapons would be able to legally transferred to civilian ownership. This was one of the more pandering and idiotic pieces of legislation old Ronnie Reagan signed.

However, military personal, police and certain security company entities could still take possession of select fire weapons made after 1986.

Civilians can still own and buy and sell select fire weapons from that finite pool of weapons made before May 1986 - they just have to comply with the same rules they have been complying with since 1934.

I'm not tryin to vote to take away every gun, but to reduce the need for them and the sale of them via random people. You shouldn't be able to buy a gun from a gun convention and you should need more hours in training to get a gun. The gun argument dosent make the same sense today as the constitution words in back then.

You do understand that people buying guns "from a gun convention" are actually buying guns from FFL dealers - actual gun shops that are at the convention/show and the sales still require background checks.

For the 1,000000000000000000000th time - there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole. This is a flat out lie. There is no such thing. It is just a contrived way to paint FACE to FACE individual gun sales as scary evil actions.

Any FFL vendor at a gun show has to follow the same rules when selling a gun as if they where back at their shop.

People do not need to be at a gun show to PRIVATELY sell their gun to another person. Some people do go to gun shows in the hopes of selling their gun to another private individual who will foolishly pay more than market value for the gun.

But they are not using the gun show as the sales platform, they are privately outside of the control and jurisdiction of the gun show, in the car park usually, making the sale.

Altogether now "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE"

And how many hours of training should be required before buying a gun? What about when one goes to buy their 23rd gun?

While you are at it, how many hours training should be required before one may exercise ones right to free speech?

 

[Barra333]

Ironic that you just chastised someone for not being able to have a reasonable debate because people are "idiots" if they don't agree with him, and then follow it up with a condescending wisecrack about crayons. Or is it different when you do it?

I have done my best to be civil - go and have a look at how many posts I made in this thread and the other one attempting to make a rational argument. If that was my first post in the thread, you would have a point. Could have been worse, I could have said that anyone with a room temperature IQ would be able understand my argument.

BTW, how many guns did you offer up for buy back and destruction in 1996/7?

I turned 15 in 1997, so, none. But I know my father handed in a few. He also got to keep a few because he had a membership to a gun club and could show that he hunted regularly. Your point?

What planet (other than GTPlanet) are you from where all of a sudden a posters OPINION has to be backed by scientific research for it to be permitted to be posted??? Are you suggesting my opinions carry so much weight they are in fact, fact? If that was the case then they would stand ion their own merit and not need

Sure, you are free to post an opinion without a source, but you keep saying that everything you are saying is 'obvious reality' and 'fact'. Also, if someone puts up an opinion with some evidence to back it, it is only polite to reply with evidence rather than an insult to their intelligence for not seeing your 'obvious reality'.

 

[jimipitbull]

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, right after Freedom of Speech and way before the rest of those other specifically enumerated rights we hold dear, is the right to keep and bear arms - nothing about nail driving equipment. Not sure how much more clear to make it.

Bear arms can mean several different things. The US would be in a much nicer place if it focused more on bear costumes instead. Though I must say that it is a good thing that my freedom of speech is considered more important than your guns. Clear, yes.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have done my best to be civil - go and have a look at how many posts I made in this thread and the other one attempting to make a rational argument. If that was my first post in the thread, you would have a point. Could have been worse, I could have said that anyone with a room temperature IQ would be able understand my argument.

I see. So it's different when it's you hurling the insults and you double down on your admitted lack of patience with another blanket ad hominem attack on anyone that disagrees with you. Well done:tup:👍

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Look, if you don't want anyone on this forum that does not automatically fall down and swoon at the mere mention of climate change or gun control then just say so - but you trying to censure my opinion because it does not tow the party line is in pretty poor taste.

Another example of not being able to understand – or worse, intentionally misunderstanding – an earlier post.

There is no party line. Moderators and administrators have differing views on many things: religion, politics, etc etc. Though I suppose it's a lot easier to complain about some sort of party line if you keep pretending there is one.

This has to do with your poor attitude, and how you seemingly can't refute a claim/position without tossing in insults. You apparently know this is the case, since you re-posted a now-deleted post after receiving points for it, with a slight re-working to avoid the obvious insults.

That's a laugh - this entire attempt to censor me is only because I am not in the MMGW/anti-gunner camp. GTPlanet mods really are not very good at hiding the bias.

Famine already covered why this is wrong. It's also yet another assumption on your part (my stance on either of the subjects) - including the assumption of what moderator actions are taken behind the scenes.

Surprise: I grew up in a household with guns. I'm against the outright ban of them.

I see. So it's different when it's you hurling the insults and you double down on your admitted lack of patience with another blanket ad hominem attack on anyone that disagrees with you. Well done:tup:👍

I hope you're not misconstruing @Barra333's IQ comment as an attack on anybody. It is a direct reference to this:

This is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

As a bonus, here's another:

Every person with an IQ above room temperature

Because, you know, the member in question has a long history of this sort of behaviour.

 

[RC45]

Because, you know, the member in question has a long history of this sort of behaviour.

Having been a member of GTPlanet since 2001 one will tend to have a long history.

Bear arms can mean several different things. The US would be in a much nicer place if it focused more on bear costumes instead. Though I must say that it is a good thing that my freedom of speech is considered more important than your guns. Clear, yes.

No in this context bearing arms means bearing arms - arms in this case would be firearms.

For a 'not nice place' there sure seem to be millions of people trying very hard to get into the USA both legally (and illegally) - everyone is so quick to slam the USA, yet it is the one place more people try to break INTO every year more than anywhere else on the planet.

And its not your freedom of speech that is protected, unless you where resident here in the USA - and this is reflected in the fact you live in a country without a Bill of Rights protecting you as a resident/citizen from an over reaching government. Unless you managed to secure a BoR's over the weekend?

 

[FoolKiller]

That's just terrible then. There is no hope for this country after all, because according to your definition everyone is part of the milita(not really) and everyone has a right to a gun unless they are ******* crazy(to fail a psych test you must be *******) or outright violent.

It isn't even about failing a psyche test. Our mental healthcare in this country is so poor that any kind of psychological evaluation is not even given because Medicare, Medicaid, and HMOs require a referral by a primary care physician. So, we expect people to tell multiple people about their possibly embarrassing issues. Then many primary care doctors will just write a prescription for an antidepressant.

My insurance is a CDHP, and while I don't need a referral I have to call my insurance to request pre-approval. I have to call and explain I need counseling or whatever to a complete stranger. I can see that causing additional anxiety in a world where mental health issues are stigmatized.

As for the psyche exams themselves, I have had one before. The biggest trick is finding a sociopath that can't hide his feelings. The most crazy have the ability to pass without issue. But the mass shootings are often done by emotional, depressed, or angry individuals who might also have a form of personality disorder. Those show up and are noticed by family and doctors that are paying attention.


This ties into background checks. I have no issue with a background check. I had an issue with the latest attempt because it completely exempted HIPPA laws. There is already a system for mental health professionals to flag high risk patients. There was zero reason to justify allowing full access to health records. As a person with many, lifelong health issues I found that completely unacceptable. And today, with the EMR systems in place any flags should be readily visible while blocking all other health records.

 

[RC45]

It isn't even about failing a psyche test. Our mental healthcare in this country is so poor that any kind of psychological evaluation is not even given because Medicare, Medicaid, and HMOs require a referral by a primary care physician. So, we expect people to tell multiple people about their possibly embarrassing issues. Then many primary care doctors will just write a prescription for an antidepressant.

My insurance is a CDHP, and while I don't need a referral I have to call my insurance to request pre-approval. I have to call and explain I need counseling or whatever to a complete stranger. I can see that causing additional anxiety in a world where mental health issues are stigmatized.

As for the psyche exams themselves, I have had one before. The biggest trick is finding a sociopath that can't hide his feelings. The most crazy have the ability to pass without issue. But the mass shootings are often done by emotional, depressed, or angry individuals who might also have a form of personality disorder. Those show up and are noticed by family and doctors that are paying attention.


This ties into background checks. I have no issue with a background check. I had an issue with the latest attempt because it completely exempted HIPPA laws. There is already a system for mental health professionals to flag high risk patients. There was zero reason to justify allowing full access to health records. As a person with many, lifelong health issues I found that completely unacceptable. And today, with the EMR systems in place any flags should be readily visible while blocking all other health records.

The current state of mental healthcare is also due to the liberal feel good legislation effectively making involuntary commitment all but impossible.

So it does not matter if as you say Those show up and are noticed by family and doctors that are paying attention. - its is not easy to involuntarily commit someone.

It does not matter if you know your cousin is literally bat-guano crazy, kills cats, tortures puppies and obsesses about mass murder every day - there is very little you can legally do about it until after he commits a crime.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Tackling mental health care issues is about as likely to have an effect as introducing nationwide gun bans, in my humble opinion. There isn't even an effective treatment for those that want to get better, never mind those that feel isolated from society, wallowing in self-pity, just waiting for the day to come that something gives them the opportunity to 🤬 everyone up.

 

[Kent]

I love how often this thread has people going on about what the facts are only to end up saying "in my opinion."
It's almost like people don't want the facts if they don't go along with their own opinions.

Fact:
Guns are here and will continue to be here regardless of what laws people make.

Opinion:
Outlawing guns will make it so only the outlaws have guns.

 

[Danoff]

@Kent

Did you just... oooohhh.... I see what you did there.

 

[Northstar]

I know it's not the current topic of discussion, but I never get why people use self defense for justifying needing anything other than a handgun or hunting rifle. Don't get me wrong, if you want one and are responsible I have no problem with people owning them. But is it so hard to just be honest enough to say you want a high powered gun because you like shooting them? Using the "self-defense" line just seems like saying you need a La Ferrari in case you ever need to outrun a tornado.

Note: If you are in an area where a semi-automatic rifle is required to stay alive, you should probably re-evaluate some things in your life.

 

[RC45]

I know it's not the current topic of discussion, but I never get why people use self defense for justifying needing anything other than a handgun or hunting rifle. Don't get me wrong, if you want one and are responsible I have no problem with people owning them. But is it so hard to just be honest enough to say you want a high powered gun because you like shooting them? Using the "self-defense" line just seems like saying you need a La Ferrari in case you ever need to outrun a tornado.

Now I am sure that nonsense makes sense in your mind...

Note: If you are in an area where a semi-automatic rifle is required to stay alive, you should probably re-evaluate some things in your life.

Really? So these families should all re-evaluate things in the their life?

 

[Northstar]

Really? So these families should all re-evaluate things in the their life?

Just because someone has used an assault rifle to defend their home doesn't mean it was necessary to do so. Both of those incidents appear to be "routine" home invasions, a pistol would have probably done the job just fine.

Again, if you want to have one, fine, but be honest.

 

[RC45]

D

Just because someone has used an assault rifle to defend their home doesn't mean it was necessary to do so. Both of those incidents appear to be "routine" home invasions, a pistol would have probably done the job just fine.

Again, if you want to have one, fine, but be honest.

In other words you have no response.

Thanks for clarifying.

And just so you know, children, females and others that are slight of frame actually have better control over an AR15 than a hand gun.

But you knew this right?

This is of course just simple physics - the felt recoil and torque from a hand gun is greater than that of an AR15 in a 2 handed grip. Limp wristing a hand gun is very dangerous.

In this situation, the 2 handed grip of the rifle was actually safer and better than the unpredictable results of limp wristing a hand gun.

IOW there are situations where a semi automatic rifle is preferred to a semi automatic hand gun in a self defense situation.

Thanks for playing, there are consolation gifts at the door.

 

[Northstar]

D

In other words you have no response.

It seems like you are the one with no response. Let me know when you can provide a scenario where an assault rifle was required in a home invasion, as in a handgun wouldn't suffice in the slightest.

And just so you know, children, females and others that are slight of frame actually have better control over an AR15 than a hand gun.

That doesn't suddenly mean it's the ideal tool for the job.

Limp wristing a hand gun is very dangerous.

And using any type of weapon is very dangerous without proper training, what's your point?

Anyways, I'm not sure what your problem is as I'm PRO-GUN. Overly confrontational arguments like you are putting forth is probably why a growing number of the population wants to ban them.

 

[a6m5]

I assume that we are talking about home defense situation? My tool for that indeed is a handgun, but having said that, there are so many advantages to semi-auto rifles over handguns or hunting rifles for home defense. If I wasn't worried about high-penetration, I might be using one for home defense myself.

 

[RC45]

I assume that we are talking about home defense situation? My tool for that indeed is a handgun, but having said that, there are so many advantages to semi-auto rifles over handguns or hunting rifles for home defense. If I wasn't worried about high-penetration, I might be using one for home defense myself.

Now this a reasonable response.

As for over penetration, just look for lighter non-steel core or even frangible loads. And also bear in mind the 2 handed AR15 stance will probably have fewer rounds off target than the handgun scenario.

It seems like you are the one with no response. Let me know when you can provide a scenario where an assault rifle was required in a home invasion, as in a handgun wouldn't suffice in the slightest.

And just so you know, children, females and others that are slight of frame actually have better control over an AR15 than a hand gun.

That doesn't suddenly mean it's the ideal tool for the job.

You would be wrong.

That specifically means it is the correct and ideal weapon for self defense. You defend yourself with the most ideal tool for the job at hand.

And using any type of weapon is very dangerous without proper training, what's your point?

All the training in the world will not miraculously make a slight framed woman or young teen suddenly get the arm and wrist strength to be able to bring a pistol to bear with a more secure grip than a 2 handed gripped AR15.

In this regard your position is incorrect.

Anyways, I'm not sure what your problem is as I'm PRO-GUN. Overly confrontational arguments like you are putting forth is probably why a growing number of the population wants to ban them.

Facts and reality are not "overly confrontational" except to those who are trying to defend the indefensible.

You being pro-gun with incorrect information and lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand does nobody any good.

You claimed there was no situation in which an AR15 would be the preferred self defense weapon over a hand gun - not only did I cite examples of this having been the case - I also showed you by way of explanation why this is the case.

Have you ever been at a range and either been coached in the techniques and strategies smaller framed people in home and self defense situations need to employ or have you ever helped and coached smaller framed folks in this regard?

If you had been in either situation you would know that the smaller framed person with limited wrist and arm strength is far better off wielding an AR15 in a 2 handed grip than trying to wield a pistol.

This is not even debatable, it is reality.

So, again, you claimed that there did not exist a situation in which an AR15 would be the preferred self defense platform and I showed you to be incorrect.

Quite frankly, you are the type of pro-gunner that I would rather not have on "our side" thanks.

 

[Northstar]

So, again, you claimed that there did not exist a situation in which an AR15 would be the preferred self defense platform and I showed you to be incorrect.

That's not what I said, what I said was that those situations didn't require an AR15 (emphasis on "require"), the fact that's what was used is beside the point. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post since you won't read my response anyways.

Also, you know what, you're right, I'm no longer on your side. REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!

 

[RC45]

That's not what I said, what I said was that those situations didn't require an AR15 (emphasis on "require"), the fact that's what was used is beside the point. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post since you won't read my response anyways.

By that same logic there is no situation that requires ANY firearm for self defense. (emphasis on "require")

Hiding in the attic and keeping really quiet is just as effective in surviving a home invasion.

I believe you may just be sour because I presented situations you either did not think of or did not think existed.

Also, you know what, you're right, I'm no longer on your side. REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!

So, as a pro-gunner, what self defense weapon is your primary home defense tool?

 

[Northstar]

I believe you may just be sour because I presented situations you either did not think of or did not think existed.

Whatever you want to think, it's fine by me.

So, as a pro-gunner, what self defense weapon is your primary home defense tool?

A baseball bat (and not having anything worth stealing).

BTW, just because I support something doesn't mean I participate/own whatever it may be. I'm for gay marriage, yet never have I kissed a man. I'm pro legalizing marijuana, yet don't smoke it and I'm pro-gun even though I don't own one and have no real desire to.

 

[RC45]

Whatever you want to think, it's fine by me.



A baseball bat (and not having anything worth stealing).

BTW, just because I support something doesn't mean I participate/own whatever it may be. I'm for gay marriage, yet never have I kissed a man. I'm pro legalizing marijuana, yet don't smoke it and I'm pro-gun even though I don't own one and have no real desire to.

Thanks for confirming what I suspected.

Your initial comment was not founded in any fact or real experience or knowledge on the subject.