Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and you are retarted. target shooting and hunting are not large enough necessities to justify the right to bear arms when the negetive consequences{accidental or otherwise} far outweigh the RIGHT of people to shoot animals{even the idea sounds retarted}. whats next? letting people own plastic explosives and nukes, because they have a RIGHT to watch awesome explosions????????? you have to look at consequences first. i dont deny that in a perfect world, people shud have a right to target practice, but then again, in a perfect world, people shud also have the right to watch huge explosion. fact is, this isnt a perfect world and the consequences{to other free citizens} far outweigh the rights of the individual. do you have any idea the number of deaths in the last 50 years in america alone from gun related accidents/violence etc? what about the right of the people who got shot to their lives and the lives of their loved ones and the right for them to not live in fear of these things????????!!!!!!! obviously you dont care much about that.

the defence argument is flawed. only rarely does having a gun in your house help you in practical situations against robbers etc. the probability that youll have it ready and usable, or that infact it will help you SAVE lives in random robberies etc is remote. and there is little evidence to back it up. furthermore, people for the second ammendment are quite often more interested in carrying high caliber/more destructive firearms {e.g. m-16 assault rifles, 50 cal magnums, snipers, shotguns, 45. etc etc} which are not at ALL needed for defence. a 9mm would work better actually. but lets be honest now, DEFENCE is just a ploy used by gun lovers, that isnt the real reason they want guns around, and its silly to fall for such an old trick.

but more important than that, putting in more guns in a community to PROTECT people is akin to putting out flames with gasoline. irrespective of the intentions of the buyer, the more guns the community posesses, the more gun crimes are commited annualy, as well as "accidents". at the end of the day, thats more dead bodies for you, so really which community is SAFER, the one with guns for "protection" or one without guns??? guns just encourage more violence. also, the laws which allow you to shoot at sum1 simply because they are in your PROPERTY{considering how big sum PROPERTIES in the state where guns are popular really are, not considering the house u live in} allow for unnecesary amount of force.

in the end, if SAFETY is an issue, than buy a taser. it is more effective than 9mm and people have no excuse to keep firearms. firearmsshud be confined to the premises of shooting ranges alone, and under strict control not to be taken out into people's hands.

the second ammendment was made a LONG time ago, when america was supposed to endorse the ideology of freedom of live in a wild land. no real police, robbers and rogues aplenty, and the fact of government/military, forcing people all over europe{and other places} to conform to idologies and unfair laws etc. the right to bear arms was the right to empower individuals to stand up for themselves against such forces and be free. that is what the right to bear arms signified. however, it is completely unnecessary and without justification in TODAY'S world.

First of all, if you're going to call me "retarded", please spell it right.

Secondly, your logic still (as always) fails. You're making wild and illogical leaps between owning a gun, which certainly has uses (as noted) and owning nuclear armaments. For the record, a 9mm is a better deterent and/or protection than a taser, as fact.

Thirdly, There are literally more guns than people in America, yet accidental deaths and unlawful shootings are not off the carts, as you make it seem that gun ownership equates to.

Fourthly, you're a complete idiot that has nothing except illogical rants.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and you are retarted. target shooting and hunting are not large enough necessities to justify the right to bear arms when the negetive consequences{accidental or otherwise} far outweigh the RIGHT of people to shoot animals{even the idea sounds retarted}. whats next? letting people own plastic explosives and nukes, because they have a RIGHT to watch awesome explosions????????? you have to look at consequences first. i dont deny that in a perfect world, people shud have a right to target practice, but then again, in a perfect world, people shud also have the right to watch huge explosion. fact is, this isnt a perfect world and the consequences{to other free citizens} far outweigh the rights of the individual. do you have any idea the number of deaths in the last 50 years in america alone from gun related accidents/violence etc? what about the right of the people who got shot to their lives and the lives of their loved ones and the right for them to not live in fear of these things????????!!!!!!! obviously you dont care much about that.

the defence argument is flawed. only rarely does having a gun in your house help you in practical situations against robbers etc. the probability that youll have it ready and usable, or that infact it will help you SAVE lives in random robberies etc is remote. and there is little evidence to back it up. furthermore, people for the second ammendment are quite often more interested in carrying high caliber/more destructive firearms {e.g. m-16 assault rifles, 50 cal magnums, snipers, shotguns, 45. etc etc} which are not at ALL needed for defence. a 9mm would work better actually. but lets be honest now, DEFENCE is just a ploy used by gun lovers, that isnt the real reason they want guns around, and its silly to fall for such an old trick.

but more important than that, putting in more guns in a community to PROTECT people is akin to putting out flames with gasoline. irrespective of the intentions of the buyer, the more guns the community posesses, the more gun crimes are commited annualy, as well as "accidents". at the end of the day, thats more dead bodies for you, so really which community is SAFER, the one with guns for "protection" or one without guns??? guns just encourage more violence. also, the laws which allow you to shoot at sum1 simply because they are in your PROPERTY{considering how big sum PROPERTIES in the state where guns are popular really are, not considering the house u live in} allow for unnecesary amount of force.

in the end, if SAFETY is an issue, than buy a taser. it is more effective than 9mm and people have no excuse to keep firearms. firearmsshud be confined to the premises of shooting ranges alone, and under strict control not to be taken out into people's hands.

the second ammendment was made a LONG time ago, when america was supposed to endorse the ideology of freedom of live in a wild land. no real police, robbers and rogues aplenty, and the fact of government/military, forcing people all over europe{and other places} to conform to idologies and unfair laws etc. the right to bear arms was the right to empower individuals to stand up for themselves against such forces and be free. that is what the right to bear arms signified. however, it is completely unnecessary and without justification in TODAY'S world.

I'm glad your opinion of the 2nd has no actual bearing on the law whatsoever.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm glad your opinion of the 2nd has no actual bearing on the law whatsoever.

While true, we do have the "what's next, the right to own a fully armed Apache gunship!?" ranting idiots in America as well.

And it's usually the same people who can see stupidity of the argument Bible Thumpers use "What's next, marrying a dog!?". But they use the same line of thinking when disagreeing with the 2nd.

I want a gunship...

Originally posted by BackFire
I want a cock in my mouth...

Fixed

Psh, I can get that whenever I want.

A gunship, though...

Originally posted by Robtard
First of all, if you're going to call me "retarded", please spell it right.

Secondly, your logic still (as always) fails. You're making wild and illogical leaps between owning a gun, which certainly has uses (as noted) and owning nuclear armaments. For the record, a 9mm is a better deterent and/or protection than a taser, as fact.

Thirdly, There are literally more guns than people in America, yet accidental deaths and unlawful shootings are not off the carts, as you make it seem that gun ownership equates to.

Fourthly, you're a complete idiot that has nothing except illogical rants.

so your a grammer nazi on top of a retard. congrats.

the air tasers of today have more stopping power than a 9mm FACT. and again, your making stupid claims about me while not specifically replying to the points posted. conclusion, ur an idiot. the nuclear armnaments is a valid analogy as it is not a different of type or argument, only of magnitude. you cant answer it, fine, just dont ***** and moan.

accidental shooting and gun crimes are off the charts in america. compare it to canada.

as for the last statement, what are you, a retarted baby who has nuthing original to say? dont open your mouth unless your going to deal with the points made.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and you are retarted. target shooting and hunting are not large enough necessities to justify the right to bear arms when the negetive consequences{accidental or otherwise} far outweigh the RIGHT of people to shoot animals{even the idea sounds retarted}. whats next? letting people own plastic explosives and nukes, because they have a RIGHT to watch awesome explosions????????? you have to look at consequences first. i dont deny that in a perfect world, people shud have a right to target practice, but then again, in a perfect world, people shud also have the right to watch huge explosion. fact is, this isnt a perfect world and the consequences{to other free citizens} far outweigh the rights of the individual. do you have any idea the number of deaths in the last 50 years in america alone from gun related accidents/violence etc? what about the right of the people who got shot to their lives and the lives of their loved ones and the right for them to not live in fear of these things????????!!!!!!! obviously you dont care much about that.

the defence argument is flawed. only rarely does having a gun in your house help you in practical situations against robbers etc. the probability that youll have it ready and usable, or that infact it will help you SAVE lives in random robberies etc is remote. and there is little evidence to back it up. furthermore, people for the second ammendment are quite often more interested in carrying high caliber/more destructive firearms {e.g. m-16 assault rifles, 50 cal magnums, snipers, shotguns, 45. etc etc} which are not at ALL needed for defence. a 9mm would work better actually. but lets be honest now, DEFENCE is just a ploy used by gun lovers, that isnt the real reason they want guns around, and its silly to fall for such an old trick.

but more important than that, putting in more guns in a community to PROTECT people is akin to putting out flames with gasoline. irrespective of the intentions of the buyer, the more guns the community posesses, the more gun crimes are commited annualy, as well as "accidents". at the end of the day, thats more dead bodies for you, so really which community is SAFER, the one with guns for "protection" or one without guns??? guns just encourage more violence. also, the laws which allow you to shoot at sum1 simply because they are in your PROPERTY{considering how big sum PROPERTIES in the state where guns are popular really are, not considering the house u live in} allow for unnecesary amount of force.

in the end, if SAFETY is an issue, than buy a taser. it is more effective than 9mm and people have no excuse to keep firearms. firearmsshud be confined to the premises of shooting ranges alone, and under strict control not to be taken out into people's hands.

the second ammendment was made a LONG time ago, when america was supposed to endorse the ideology of freedom of live in a wild land. no real police, robbers and rogues aplenty, and the fact of government/military, forcing people all over europe{and other places} to conform to idologies and unfair laws etc. the right to bear arms was the right to empower individuals to stand up for themselves against such forces and be free. that is what the right to bear arms signified. however, it is completely unnecessary and without justification in TODAY'S world.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so your a grammer nazi on top of a retard. congrats.

the air tasers of today have more stopping power than a 9mm FACT. and again, your making stupid claims about me while not specifically replying to the points posted. conclusion, ur an idiot. the nuclear armnaments is a valid analogy as it is not a different of type or argument, only of magnitude. you cant answer it, fine, just dont ***** and moan.

accidental shooting and gun crimes are off the charts in america. compare it to canada.

as for the last statement, what are you, a retarted baby who has nuthing original to say? dont open your mouth unless your going to deal with the points made.

Not at all, you've done it on multiple occasions and not just to me, so if you insist on calling people "retarded", at least get that one word right, retard.

No, your nuclear analogy isn't valid; it's in fact an idiotic stance. A private citizen can make a valid case for owning a 9mm for home protection or a hunting rifle for hunting, there is no logical reason why a private citizen needs nuclear explosives, not that I expect an illogical ranter to understand. As far as your tasers, A 9mm is a far more effective deterrent and if the need to kill in self-defense arises, a 9mm is better than a taser at that too, fool.

Not compared with how many guns and the population of the US. There's also the issue of how many of those gun crimes are committed by illegal guns and criminals and how many are accidents by licensed citizens, because making guns illegal won't necessarily deter the criminal element, simian.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

What, did you think reposting your illogical word-blanket a second time would make it less stupid? Hint: It didn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not at all, you've done it on multiple occasions and not just to me, so if you insist on calling people "retarded", at least get that one word right, retard.

No, your nuclear analogy isn't valid, it's in fact an idiotic stance. A private citizen can make a valid case for owning a 9mm for home protection or a hunting rifle for hunting, there is no logical reason why a private citizen needs nuclear explosives, not that I except an illogical ranter to understand. As far as your tasers, A 9mm is a far more effective deterrent and if the need to kill in self-defense arises, a 9mm is better than a taser at that too, fool.

Not compared with how many guns and the population of the US, simian.

so you werent the one who started it by saying "your logic fails and it fails horribly" when i wasnt even referring to u? i dont start trouble. but yea, ur a retard whose also a grammer nazi.

how can a private citizen make a valid case for owning a rifle or a handgun when i already debunked all ur points and tazers are available? {fail}
there is no logical reason why a citizen needs guns. and you show your foolishness when you say "kill" in self defence. there is no need to KILL in self DEFENCE, that is the whole point. incapacitation is more than enough for any DEFENCE. killing is excessive use of force which ISNT defence. and an air tazer has greater stopping power than a 9mm, FACT.

Originally posted by Robtard
What, did you think reposting your illogical word-blanket a second time would make it less stupid? Hint: It didn't.

i dont blame you for your condition. stay on those meds.

Aren't you the fella who claimed that suicide was not a choice?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so you werent the one who started it by saying "your logic fails and it fails horribly" when i wasnt even referring to u? i dont start trouble. but yea, ur a retard whose also a grammer nazi.

how can a private citizen make a valid case for owning a rifle or a handgun when i already debunked all ur points and tazers are available? {fail}
there is no logical reason why a citizen needs guns. and you show your foolishness when you say "kill" in self defence. there is no need to KILL in self DEFENCE, that is the whole point. incapacitation is more than enough for any DEFENCE. killing is excessive use of force which ISNT defence. and an air tazer has greater stopping power than a 9mm, FACT.

You're welcome in regards to me correcting you in your use of your favorite insult word.

You haven't debunked shit, you complete idiot. A rifle is generally used for hunting; you can't hunt with a taser, or do you think you can? A 9mm can be used effectively for home protection, more so than a taser which generally has ONE shot and people are not so inclined to think twice when seeing a taser as they are a gun pointed at them.

As always, your points fail and you make yourself out to be the proper idiot.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Aren't you the fella who claimed that suicide was not a choice?

Are you really surprised?

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you really surprised?

Most definitely not.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're welcome in regards to me correcting you in your use of your favorite insult word.

You haven't debunked shit, you complete idiot. A rifle is generally used for hunting; you can't hunt with a taser, or do you think you can? A 9mm can be used effectively for home protection, more so than a taser which generally has ONE shot and people are not so inclined to think twice when seeing a taser as they are a gun pointed at them.

As always, your points fail and you make yourself out to be the proper idiot.

yes i have. hunting is a sport involving killing animals for fun. not even duscussing the moral issues,the FREEDOM to hunt, is outweighed by the risks to the safety of the society. if u bothered to read, ud know i mentioned this before. the protection point has been debunked, posessing guns, rarely translated into being available at the time one is being robbed etc and then further being useful enough to disable the threat without loss of life. and ur arguing facts, it isnt more effective as self defence requires STOPPING POWER, and the tazer has more than the 9mm. intimidation is the ONLY factor, in which case an empty gun or a gun with ruber bullets would suffice just as well.

as always you PROVE that your retarted with every ensuing reply. and you havent replied to any of points. ***** and moan.

How exactly would you plan to reclaim every gun held by a U.S citizen? Turning regular citizens into hardened criminals by establishing such a law, would do nothing but demonize regular people and make illegal weapons more widespread.

erm, put in a law which requires all firearms to be sold back to the government maybe............................ with penalties for those who dont. and why wud it turn citizens into hardened criminals seeing as they have bought gund under the pretext of PROTECTION?????? {or am i right and is self defence only a superficial cover for people who love to own, use and live by GUNS?} . also, the posessing of any weapons would net you a hefty fine/jail time, that shud work well for deterrance. and since people cant carry weapons around anymore, it would deter the illegal ones just as much.