Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by Robtard
Hahaha, I see, you don't have an answer to back up your whimsical spouting, nothign new.

Oh, now it's "civilized countries", considering what you said is true, the 'America is unsafe with a high crime rate' bit, banning guns won't stop the use of guns in crimes, as criminals break the law regardless.

What would I do if an armed criminal(s) broke into my house and I was armed? I would use the gun as a deterrent and as self-defense if necessary, which a 9mm is far more effective than a one-shot taser. Hearing a gun go off is more threatening than aiming a taser at someone else armed with a gun, another fact.

[b]You pathetic little liar, you insulted me first by calling me "retarted(sic)", because I said your "points failed" in regards to banning guns. Someone else brought up your other failed points on suicide.

Seriously, it's one thing to misspell a word, but to keep on doing it even after you know it is misspelled, that pretty much says you are in fact, retarDed. [/B]

hmm, actually i do. animal sterilisationg, animal transport and rehabilitation, biological control by introducing other species which are predaters of the said animal or consume the same fod source, partial animal fences, etc etc etc. all proven ways of dealing with the problem in yellowstone, africa and the outback. only in american would such a pathetic excuse be used to justify HUNTING.

it would lessen it, since carrying any type of firearms would be met with penalties. also, the problem is one formed by inadequate imposition of laws, and hence, cant be used to justify people owning guns. {i.e. if you create the problem to begin with, you cant use it to justify another problematic practice. kinda like murder cant be used to justify vigilantism in the law}

IF you were armed at the exact time{remote possibility} and IF there was more than one criminal{again a lesser probability} and IF they cud be taken by a sigle man with a firearm{considering that they have firearms themself as u say} seeing as they just WONT let the people around you live even if they can quietly get the cash and belongings, and IF in this situation, it just so happens that you can save every1 around you better by single handedly taking down the armed robbers as opposed to just complying with their demands, and IF the situation called for you to actually KILL them all as opposed to incapacitate them{like with a pepper/rubber bullet high powered handgun/shotgun}. then yes, a 9mm baretta wud probably avail you sumwhat better than non lethal handguns/shotguns/tazers. but seeing as to how rare this said situation is, it cant be used to justify making the whole society more unsafe and violent by legalising private firearms.

hit a nerve? or r u just losing badly? you started it by repying to sumthing which wasnt even directed at u{as u often do with MY posts} and tried to say that i was stupid and my points failed. doesnt matter anyway.

so, you being incapable of understanding the meaning of the words based on sum ridicuous conception of spellings DOESNT make u retarTed? 😆 😆

Sterilization on ducks and deer? Hahaha. Doesn't work to keep the population in check and to keep them from starving/overcrowding, sorry. Can't reintroduce predators, unless you want to demolish house, business, move people ad then reforest the areas. Then again, in your nonsense world, that would probably make sense to you. Anyhow, as pointed out by Kharmadog, people generally aren't murdered by hunting rifles, sure the odd accident here and there, it isn't an epidemic though, so your points as always fail.

In most states, it is illegal to carry weapons already. The ones who don't care about the laws are generall the criminals, the ones who wouldn't abide your laws, genius.

Exactly, a 9mm would make you safer in said situations. The rest of what you said is just more "I don't like guns" dribble.

What nerve, that you're a pathetic liar? You started with the insults by calling me "retarted(sic)", then played the victim when I insulted back. Oh great, here's when you arbitrarily start claiming others are losing, nothing new with you. Just deal that you haven't a valid point and you want to impose your will on others because you don't like guns and you think hunting is immoral, it's okay, pathetic, by okay.

Obviously I understood that you meant 'retarded', when you said "retarted", as I pointed both the constant misspelling and the fact that you insulted first, try and keep up.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so, you being incapable of understanding the meaning of the words based on sum ridicuous conception of spellings DOESNT make u retarTed?

Once again, if that is unintentional...it is comic gold. (I'm talking about everything other than the intentional incorrect spelling of the last word)

Originally posted by Robtard
Sterilization on ducks and deer? Hahaha. Doesn't work to keep the population in check and to keep them from starving/overcrowding, sorry. Can't reintroduce predators, unless you want to demolish house, business, move people ad then reforest the areas. Then again, in your nonsense world, that would probably make sense to you. Anyhow, as pointed out by Kharmadog, people generally aren't murdered by hunting rifles, sure the odd accident here and there, it isn't an epidemic though, so your points as always fail.

In most states, it is illegal to carry weapons already. The ones who don't care about the laws are generall the criminals, the ones who wouldn't abide your laws, genius.

Exactly, a 9mm would make you safer in said situations. The rest of what you said is just more "I don't like guns" dribble.

What nerve, that you're a pathetic liar? You started with the insults by calling me "retarted(sic)", then played the victim when I insulted back. Oh great, here's when you arbitrarily start claiming others are losing, nothing new with you. Just deal that you haven't a valid point and you want to impose your will on others because you don't like guns and you think hunting is immoral, it's okay, pathetic, by okay.

Obviously I understood that you meant 'retarded', when you said "retarted", as I pointed both the constant misspelling and the fact that you insulted first, try and keep up.

so, greater parts of africa, yellowstone and australia are NONSENSE WORLD??? 😆 . what does reintroducing predaters have to do with demolishing houses and moving people? cayotes and wild foxes are good enough for both of the species you mentioned. and i suppose fences, relocating animals, introducing competing species for food etc, just went over your head didnt they. you really are starting to make a fool of yourself now, with no effort on my part. so here you started nitpicking again, lets ban THOSE firearms which people do use for killing generally, sigh. what a fool, if i had a choice between a handgun and a hunting rifle to kill/use for excessive use of force, id obviousy choose handguns, but hey, if i was going to use excessive force anyway, would the limited choice of guns STOP me?!!?!?!?!?! NO! id just make do with a hunting rifle instead of a handgun. {this is one of the more moronic arguments youve made thus far. not that you are a moron. just saying}

look at my post again for the second paragraph

the situation you describe is like picking a needle of exception in a haystack of ordinary. i cud make the argument that in a rare rare instance, every1 with the rank/capability/knowhow to launch a necessary defensive nuclear strike in nuclear war is killed by sum mysterious genetically engineered virus. therefore, i shud have the right to own nuclear ICBMs , incase this situation occurs. absolutely stupid. neither of these scenarios cant be used as justification to legalise said weapon. so again, you missed the point {intentionally or just out of sheer stupidity}

your fuming 😆 . you have attacked me here and in other place when i wasnt even talking to you, get your head examined if you think you deserve a better reply after your own behaviour. again, i wasnt even talking to you. {or victimising any group which cud justifyably anger any other member}. so continue to ***** and moan. its starting to make you sound like some of the lesser secure members here.

there is such a thing as sarcasm. the capital T {for highlighting purposes} was intentional and supposed to piss you off. it really is your own fault for being bothered to such a ridiculous degree by a simple letter. 😛 {are u obsessive compulsive btw?}

btw, i feal like i was asleap, but rent we WILDLY off topic thanks to your stubbornness?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Once again, if that is unintentional...it is comic gold. (I'm talking about everything other than the intentional incorrect spelling of the last word)

....im having a blonde moment.

If you're going to falsely claim other people aren't making sense, you should really start trying to make sense in the first place. First you wanted all guns banned, including hunting rifles (for imbecilic reasons), now you're okay with hunting rifles? Pick a stance and stick with it.

Once again you spout the "if people are allowed a shotgun, then they'll want a nuclear bomb" or ICMB now, ranting. There are regulations and valid reasons why someone should own a 9mm, as compared to a nuke, just more dumb thinking on your part.

Sweet, here's where you claim I'm angry. Face it, you insulted first, then you played the victim, claiming that I attacked you and you tried to lie about it, be a big-boy and just accept that you were caught being a total jackass, as typical.

Oh yes, you sure got me good by continuing to misspell an insult. +5 points to you!

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to falsely claim other people aren't making sense, you should really start trying to make sense in the first place. First you wanted all guns banned, including hunting rifles (for imbecilic reasons), now you're okay with hunting rifles? Pick a stance and stick with it.

Once again you spout the "if people are allowed a shotgun, then they'll want a nuclear bomb" or ICMB now, ranting. There are regulations and valid reasons why someone should own a 9mm, as compared to a nuke, just more dumb thinking on your part.

Sweet, here's where you claim I'm angry. Face it, you insulted first, then you played the victim, claiming that I attacked you and you tried to lie about it, be a big-boy and just accept that you were caught being a total jackass, as typical.

Oh yes, you sure got me good by continuing to misspell an insult. +5 points to you!

SERIOULSY. r u like CAPABLE of reading and understanding. what on EARTH would make you beleive that i am endorsing hunting rifles. you made the argument that most crimes are not comitted by hunting rifles{implying i assume that my argument of gun crime doesnt extend to hunting rifles, while the law tro ban guns WUD, hence being unjust}, to which i replied that you were nitpicking, and banning all guns except hunting rifles would merely make people replace hunting rifles for normal handguns/shotguns etc to commit crimes since its usually reasons of ease which make them commite crimes or use excessive force, with handguns and not hunting rifles. so in conclusion, my argument of gun control DOES extend to hunting rifles, reguardless of their CURRENT role in crimes comitted{where u got, "leon is ok with hunting rifles now" is truly beyond me}

the validation for owning a handgun for protection were given by you in that exceedingly rare situation which CUD happen. on those grounds, the validation for owning nuclear ICBMs was given by me on similar "rare" grounds. hence they are both valid according to your reasoning. dont bring this up again, ur going in circles. and i never said "if people are allowed a shotgun, theyll want a nuclear bomb". dont put words in my mouth.

you ARE angry, or just plain hateful. 😆 . and ive given you reaosns for my answer, you replied first, you were disrespectful for no reason, youve done it before, get over it.

a brave face! me likes 😈

With your writting skills, it's hard to make out what you're saying, sometimes.

No, no, no. There is a logical and valid reason whya private citizen has the right to own a 9mm, shotgun or hunting rifle, there is none for a ICBM, just stop with that idiocy.

Listen, you have yet to make a valid point and just rant, based on your own little personal dislikes. It's useless taking to you.

Originally posted by Robtard
With your writting skills, it's hard to make out what you're saying, sometimes.

No, no, no. There is a logical and valid reason whya private citizen has the right to own a 9mm, shotgun or hunting rifle, there is none for a ICBM, just stop with that idiocy.

Listen, you have yet to make a valid point and just rant, based on your own little personal dislikes. It's useless taking to you.

maybe its your comprehensive skill and not my writing skills

lol, now your acting like a stubborn baby. just because you say sumthing over and over doesnt make it true. that point has been thoroughly dealt with and your argument can easily be used to justify nuclear icbms. ill simply start copy pasting now.

right right. again remember, just because u say sumthing doesnt make it true, the last few pages are evidence against ur claim. and btw, i dont have personal dislike against guns. QUITE the opposite, i LOOOOOOVEE guns personally. a lot of my relatives own literal safehouses of guns{legal and otherwise} and i was til very recently, a gun fanatic. infact, it takes a lot for me to not just grap a sniper and shoot the heck out of targets {or a couple illegal p-90s, vss specials and personalised augs or m203 grenade launchers}, heck a couple of people i know own rpgs!!!! but inspite of how much i love guns and weapons in general, i understand that it is wrong, and love for em doesnt make it right to own em. {so i stick with knives and katanas, but only rarely nowadays}

Your writing skill is piss-poor. But it's okay, I can make out most of it.

If you can't see the difference between a citizen wanting to own a shotgun and a citizen wanting to own an RPG and the reasons for regulations, then you're far more dense then I first imagined.

Oh, I see now, keeping swords and knives is okay, because you happen to still like them, regardless that you can easily kill someone with either, espeically the former. Double-standard clownery, that.

Like I said, you argue and would impose on others based off your own morals and personal likes/dislikes, regardless of logic.

Edit: BTW, maybe you should worry about your own country being too dangerous, considering all the weapons owned by just the people/relatives you know. (not that I really believe your outlandish claims in the first place)

again, ur comprehensive skills are at fault

i can see the difference, but that isnt what this is about. its about both being justified by the logic u use to validate public ownership of guns.

nope, keep em for practice. guns and knives are FAR less lethal than guns specially because they cant kill at range. its similar to cutlery. and again, i dont keep em hangin around and consider storing them away for good.

like you CLAIMED, backed up by nuthing in particular but ur own disagreement with me.

this country is dangerous. specially in the northern areas where illegal guns are made. but not NEARLY as dangerous as the US. for one thing, the reletives i talk about are into politics, some in pretty high places. the friends i talk about are in higher places still. but it isnt average citizens im talking about, almost none have firearms around here. which is the reason you can walk around with reletive ease at night even in shadier places{and remeber, this is closer to a third world country as opposed to america, which is a first world country} as opposed to say, manhatten{although thatd be more true, like 6 years ago} or chicago or detroit or washington.

dont beleive my outlandish claims? its ok, u dont have to. but u shud know, in the norhter fontier province near afghanistan, weapons are smuggled and replicated more than almost any other part of the world. heck 4 years olds are taught to shoot ak47s and bullets are cheaper than baloons.

Originally posted by KidRock
You're a sick individual. You say Frau Palin to create an imige of a dominatrix spread out on the hood of a car? a) how does frau represent that? b) nobody thinks that, you live in a fantasy world. It is my arguement that being a governor gives good experience in governing things..which is obviously does.

Of course I am, I have to be in order for your claims to work. No, what I am is an individual that owns the motivation for a phrase like "Frau". What I am not is speaking for the entire Obama campaign when I point out why I say something about Frau Palin. If you;re honestly saying no one in your campiagn thinks that way, you should serioulsy read some of the articles that have been submitted by your own campaign. Again, I point out the governor of Texas, the current president, that your own party is going out of it's way to distance itself from, while you argue so ernestly that all governors have the experience to lead the nation.

Originally posted by KidRock
But where is your defense of people calling McCain senile? or Frau Palin? Or making fun of Palin's retarded baby? It is all ok to do it to someone else, but when its to you, you cry. And it will hurt them..who will pay for it? They will. Will the quality of health care go down? Sure it will. What the hell are you talking about how is it fair that a person has guaranteed healthcare but cant pay for it because the insurance company guarantees that some one will pay?

I don't recall ever calling him senile. I have every reason to call Frau Palin retarded. See, I watched the debate and the interviews and listened to what she said, not what she looked like. I don't recall crying. I recall you getting American Badass because you're loosing an election. You're scared a negro might be president?

Originally posted by KidRock
YouTube video

A long-winded, "professorial" terrorist speaks totally of his claims in a matter of seconds?

Originally posted by KidRock
I sure do know people that carry guns around with a CC permit. In before "No, you dont! Liar!". Once again you bring up race, this world cannot move forward with racists like yourself in it..such a shame you're holding a race other then yours own..hell you're holding your own down as well by looking so ignorant.

I'm sure. I know of those people too, but they are not the vast majority you seem to be speaking for when you claim everyone is walking around with a weapon. I'm sorry, but you can't call me a racist when you're calling a black man a terrorist while condemning me for voting for him.

Originally posted by KidRock
Family full of conservatives? Like your grandfather voting for Obama? LOL

Nope, like my grandfather that is voting for McCain while hating the man you've spent the last 5 years defending, every step of his way.

Originally posted by KidRock
I'm glad you finally realize it.

Is that what I said, or did you just cut out the first half to validate your own bullshit claim?

Originally posted by KidRock
Why injure him at all? The sight of a gun would make him run and never come back. And a tazer wont do much if he enters my home carrying a gun of his own, since you know, banning things doesnt prevent criminals from getting them.

Asks the guy who says he'll shoot first and ask questions later? How is the intruder going to be intimidated by your legal, god-fearing, 2nd amendment weapon when he has his own, which you use to justify your reason for having one? A tazer won't stop an intruder? But you reaching for your gun while he has his trained on you will? In both cases, it depends on who reacts first. Look at all those videos of guys fighting off the tazer and actually pulling off their use of the gun. Not only do you speak for every gun, but you speak for every tazer.

Originally posted by KidRock
No, I am for people taking responsibility for themselves. Would "I was convinced I had to kill that person!" hold up in court? Of course it wouldn't, because people choose in the end to do something and they knew they couldnt afford it but did it anyway. Defend these people all you want, you will be paying for their mortgage now as well.

Let's pretend you don't think you know everything about everything, though. By the way, that senile grandfather you claim i have, owns dozens of guns and hasn't used a single one if almost 40 years.

Originally posted by KidRock
My house? I bought it in cash money, big briefcase full of it. Sorry, I dont discuss my financials with simpletons *raises pinky*

Perhaps it's because your financials don't exist. I'm unclear how I'm a threat to your financial standing by sharing how much you spend every month on this mortgage you know so much about. Or maybe you don't because you're in your first year of college and your parents foot the bill?

Originally posted by KidRock
Once again: He said he would support it.

Said what? Banning illegal gun sales? You don't?

Originally posted by KidRock
It isnt relevant whether or not I own a gun. I speak for the majority of people yes, the ones that support the 2nd amendment and their right to exercise it. Learn it, love it, and use it if you choose to..HOOO YAAA.

Again, no one is saying they want to illegalize guns. You say you speak for them, but even if a person posting in this thread were to open their response to this conversation, or another in this thread, with a simple "yes" or "no" as their first word and then went on to respond as they intended, I can almost guarentee that the vast majority would say "No" I don't own a gun. Even less would respond saying they carry it around with them all the time.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so, greater parts of africa, yellowstone and australia are NONSENSE WORLD??? 😆.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what does reintroducing predaters have to do with demolishing houses and moving people? cayotes and wild foxes are good enough for both of the species you mentioned.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
id obviousy choose handguns, but hey, if i was going to use excessive force anyway, would the limited choice of guns STOP me?!!?!?!?!?!

Originally posted by Devil King
Of course I am, I have to be in order for your claims to work. No, what I am is an individual that owns the motivation for a phrase like "Frau". What I am not is speaking for the entire Obama campaign when I point out why I say something about Frau Palin. If you;re honestly saying no one in your campiagn thinks that way, you should serioulsy read some of the articles that have been submitted by your own campaign. Again, I point out the governor of Texas, the current president, that your own party is going out of it's way to distance itself from, while you argue so ernestly that all governors have the experience to lead the nation.

Who views Palin as a dominatrix that could be represented as spread out on the hood of a car? Also again how does Frau, a german word for woman, fit into all this? I mean who besides the Democrats that like to view her as that because shes a scary woman that doesn't believe what they believe?

Originally posted by Devil King

I don't recall ever calling him senile. I have every reason to call Frau Palin retarded. See, I watched the debate and the interviews and listened to what she said, not what she looked like. I don't recall crying. I recall you getting American Badass because you're loosing an election. You're scared a negro might be president?

People in "your campaign" have called him that plenty. You would be fine with someone calling Obama retarded then, correct? Since everyones perception is different one could clearly perceive Obama as being a retard and call him one. Am I upset Obama will become president? Not so much, that means Hillary cant run in 2012..zing. And the whole Obama negro thing..not all of us harbor your racist views. Go fly your confederate flag some more, redneck.

losing* by the way.

Originally posted by Devil King

A long-winded, "professorial" terrorist speaks totally of his claims in a matter of seconds?

Still waiting for your answer. Why should we spend 500 billion dollars on the Peace Corps?

Originally posted by Devil King

I'm sure. I know of those people too, but they are not the vast majority you seem to be speaking for when you claim everyone is walking around with a weapon. I'm sorry, but you can't call me a racist when you're calling a black man a terrorist while condemning me for voting for him.

Quote to where I said "everyone is carrying a weapon"

Of course you're a racist, you look at everything in color. Hell you claim I am upset that a man might be president because hes black and not because of his policies. Either you're a racist, or at the very least an idiot..you can choose.

Originally posted by Devil King

Nope, like my grandfather that is voting for McCain while hating the man you've spent the last 5 years defending, every step of his way.

Did you not say your grandfather is voting for Obama?

Originally posted by Devil King

Is that what I said, or did you just cut out the first half to validate your own bullshit claim?

Of course it was what you said. I cut the useless bullshit out.

Originally posted by Devil King

A How is the intruder going to be intimidated by your legal, god-fearing, 2nd amendment weapon when he has his own, which you use to justify your reason for having one?

As opposed to what? Him not having a gun if guns were banned? Thats a nice joke.

Originally posted by Devil King

A tazer won't stop an intruder? But you reaching for your gun while he has his trained on you will?

I get one shot with a tazer, if I miss, I get shot dead. A tazer would do nothing for home protection if the criminal has a gun.

Originally posted by Devil King

Look at all those videos of guys fighting off the tazer and actually pulling off their use of the gun. Not only do you speak for every gun, but you speak for every tazer.

Uhh, exactly. People can fight off a tazer and use their guns..so why would I want to use a tazer for my protection when the criminal has a gun?

Originally posted by Devil King

Let's pretend you don't think you know everything about everything, though. By the way, that senile grandfather you claim i have, owns dozens of guns and hasn't used a single one if almost 40 years.

Thats great for him, but pointless information since it proves nothing as there are plenty of people a year who do have to use them for protection.

Originally posted by Devil King

Perhaps it's because your financials don't exist. I'm unclear how I'm a threat to your financial standing by sharing how much you spend every month on this mortgage you know so much about. Or maybe you don't because you're in your first year of college and your parents foot the bill?

All irrelevant information, that's why I wont post it. The cost of my mortgage has nothing to do with the morons that defaulted on theirs since they knew they had bad credit, knew they had unstable jobs and knew they couldn't afford it. Now me and you have to pay for their bill.

Originally posted by Devil King

Said what? Banning illegal gun sales? You don't?

For the 5th time: Banning guns in general..any gun, legally owned guns, illegally owned guns..all guns will be illegal if they are banned, ace.
Here is a lovely gem: "While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. " - Obama

why didn't the Constitutional Law professor just say "I don't support a gun ban, because it would Unconstitutional?

We can see by his support of the DC gun ban and Chicago gun ban he is a supporter of it.

Originally posted by Devil King

Again, no one is saying they want to illegalize guns.

No, they are just saying they would support it if brought up.

Originally posted by Devil King

Again, no one is saying they want to illegalize guns. You say you speak for them, but even if a person posting in this thread were to open their response to this conversation, or another in this thread, with a simple "yes" or "no" as their first word and then went on to respond as they intended, I can almost guarentee that the vast majority would say "No" I don't own a gun. Even less would respond saying they carry it around with them all the time.

It doesnt matter whether someone carrys a gun around or not or even owns one..they still want their right to do so protected. Like I said, I don't protest or petition or any of that, does that mean I cant support it?

And please tell me: What guns should be allowed and what guns shouldnt be? How does the Right to bear arms apply to the citizens of this country?

Originally posted by KidRock
Still waiting for your answer. Why should we spend 500 billion dollars on the Peace Corps?

Where is that coming from? If this is that UN thing, you dumbass*, I've already cleared that up, clearly showing that it is no where near that. If it isn't, why haven't I heard about this $500 billion peace corps thingie?

Again, you're a complete dumbass* if you're still using that UN thing as a arguing point. If not, cite your reliable source and you may have convinced me further of the things wrong with Obama.

Also, Obama is absolutely correct with his gun policy. There should be restrictions on being able to get ahold of a gun. Sounds fair to me. I most certainly like to have as much rights as possible...so a gun ban would piss me off. You can argue the "crime and black market" B.S. all you want, stil doesn't change the fact that restrictions should be placed on guns to make it more difficult to get a gun if you're a "bad guy". 😄

Guns and related items that shouldn't be allowed:

Automatics.

Assualt Rifles

Armor piercing rounds

Grenade launchers

Really high caliber weapons (I'm talking about biiig bullets/rounds. http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/50cal.htm that's a hurmours yet logical article on high caliber guns. lol @ the gopher comment.

*A maths dumbass. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where is that coming from? If this is that UN thing, you dumbass*, I've already cleared that up, clearly showing that it is no where near that. If it isn't, why haven't I heard about this $500 billion peace corps thingie?

Again, you're a complete dumbass* if you're still using that UN thing as a arguing point. If not, cite your reliable source and you may have convinced me further of the things wrong with Obama.

No, its not that, try reading my posts..or even watch the 30 seconds video I posted, dumbass.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Guns and related items that shouldn't be allowed:

Automatics.

Assualt Rifles

Armor piercing rounds

Grenade launchers

Really high caliber weapons (I'm talking about biiig bullets/rounds. http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/50cal.htm that's a hurmours yet logical article on high caliber guns. lol @ the gopher comment.

*A maths dumbass. 😄

So why has Obama voted to ban handguns and sport/hunting shotguns and rifles?

Originally posted by KidRock
No, its not that, try reading my posts..or even watch the 30 seconds video I posted, dumbass.

LOL! So is he going to get the government to fund it, or are the citizens going to fund it? hmm?

I would assume it would be privately funded. Actually, privately, a better miltary force could be operated and equipped better than the government...for less money.

Originally posted by KidRock
So why has Obama voted to ban handguns and sport/hunting shotguns and rifles?

Within a major city? Righ? Not all over the U.S. right? Some people think that best solution to prevent homocides in large cities is a removal of guns. I don't think that that's the best decision. Martial law and police brutatlity is the best solution for homocide and viloent crime mitigation. Yes, I'm dead serious.

But do you agree that we should at least put limits on who we give guns to?

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL! So is he going to get the government to fund it, or are the citizens going to fund it? hmm?

I would assume it would be privately funded. Actually, privately, a better miltary force could be operated and equipped better than the government...for less money.

Where does the government get its money? The people.

So maybe you can answer, why would spending 500 billion dollars on the peace corps be a good idea?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Within a major city? Righ? Not all over the U.S. right? Some people think that best solution to prevent homocides in large cities is a removal of guns. I don't think that that's the best decision. Martial law and police brutatlity is the best solution for homocide and viloent crime mitigation. Yes, I'm dead serious.

But do you agree that we should at least put limits on who we give guns to?

Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

Yes, we should put limits on it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Where does the government get its money? The people.

That does not address any point in my post. It is an unrelated comment.

Originally posted by KidRock
So maybe you can answer, why would spending 500 billion dollars on the peace corps be a good idea?

I may not be watching the same video you are. I didn't hear anything about the "peace corps" in that video. The video was 20 seconds long, not 30. Is the video on previous pages?

And, no, that would not be in the U.S.' best interest, imo. We should, instead, cut spending and programs and increase funding for, say, our school systems.

Originally posted by KidRock
Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03

For the entire state? That SOB. Was it just for Chicago or the entire state?

Originally posted by KidRock
Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99

That's fine with me. I like excise taxes. 😄

Originally posted by KidRock
Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04

That's fine. It's not the "old west" anymore, bro. Now, a gun under your bed with a thumb print unlocking mechanism is the perfect place to have a gun when not target shooting or hunting. Just reach under your bed, swipe your thumb, pull out the gun, and bust a cap in the intruder's/rapist's a$$. WEEEE!

Originally posted by KidRock
Yes, we should put limits on it.

Awesome. We agree there. However, it doesn't look like we agree to the extent of those limitations. That's fine. Objective science would be the only way to resolve our small difference on this matter. Unless there's some sort of massive study before and after banning of guns in a city, that is peer reviewed and found sound, then where could we possibly get "objective science" on this?