General Forums >> General Discussions >> Gun Control

+4

Gun Control

2,134 Views
59 Replies Flag as inappropriate
2012-09-24_22-41-56_408_max50

167 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 


 “A Virginia Tech insider shared that 30 dead and 25 wounded were accomplished in 7 minutes,” said Borsch. “The Stopwatch of Death factor here is 7.9 (murder attempts per minute) — four times that of Columbine (2.1), and over twice that of Dawson College in Montreal (2.9).”

So we have 7.9 murder attemps per minute, over a 60 second minute that works out to an aimed gunshot every 7 1/2 seconds. Plenty of time to reload between rounds, regardless of the capacity of the magazine. 


In a world where there are Sheep and Wolves,
I am the Sheepdog.
Ranger Up!

I am NOT a hero
but I know a few

Wredcedar_max50

1244 posts

    

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Cho was doing slow deliberate shooting, and other than one professor, no one made any attempts to stop him.  In Colorado, it seems like there was a effort to throw a lot of rounds fast, you can empty a glock 22 in 6 or 7 seconds if you fire as fast as possible, your accuracy is not very good.  if you are shooting into a mass of people this probably wouldn't be a problem.  I suspect with a little practice, I could shoot a Thompson Contender every 7.5 seconds.

Csi_squirrle_max600_1__max50

1470 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Up until now I have stayed out of this thread.  Nothing is ever resolved with this discussion, and pretty much no one ever changes his/her mind.  First off go to youtube and put in fastest revolver shooter with reload.  You will see a guy who put 12 rounds on target with a six shot revolver in under three seconds.  Magazine capacity means nothing unless you are taking on fire and trying to supress that.  These theater goers were sheep to the slaughter.  Based on reports the AR-15 jammed causing the shooter to abandon it.  Had he had quality ten round magazines he would probably still be shooting.


Now on to the larger argument.  Yes we citizens need assault style weapons including fully auto (which citizens can own with the proper paperwork)  The second amendment was written by our founding fathers as a failsafe to keep the government from running roughshod over the population.  If anyone doubts this then you don't know your history.


Then comes the arument that the government has tanks and such.  Well so do civilians.  They are also legal to own.  I guess the story stops at nuclear weapons. 


No weapon is bad, no weapon is good.  A weapon is a tool and nothing more. 


Whenever we enter into this type of discussion we fail in two areas.  First we fail to acknowledge the real reason our founding fathers put the amendment in place.  The second area we fail is to address the real issue.  This guy was among arguably the most intellegent minds as far as the working of the brain.  They aparently could not see, or would not admit, that this guy was deranged.  As a result this shooting was played out.  The even more disturbing aspect is the guy who owns the gun range the shooter tried to join saw he was a nut job.  Interesting.


The way we treat our mentally ill in this country should be the discussion.  Why did none of the highly educated individuals who dealt with the shooter on a regular basis notice how disturbed he was.  If they did then why did they not force him into treatment as is available in every state in the union.


Let's stop blaming the weapon.  Let's not discuss magizine capacity, lets look at the root cause which is the failure in this country to properly treat the mentally ill.


I refuse to use his name in any of my postings as I WILL NOT give him any measure of notoriety.


 


 

-26 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 2 years ago

 

This gun control hype raises its ugly head EVERY time we have a major disaster in the countryand it's cannon fodder for the Libs.Here's a tiny tidbit to mull over.In Switzerland all males between the ages of 20 to 30 are conscripted into the malitia.The Swiss have no standing Army per se.It is mandatory for said individuals to have a weapon.Officers carry and or have in their homes a Sig P220 semi auto pistol and enlisted man carry and or have in their homes a Sig 550 semi auto rifle.Switzerland ,my friends has the lowest per capata homicide rate in the world...Hmmmm,wonder why?Another fascinating item of interest that not many are cognizant of is that Hitler,during the second world war, had plans to invade Switzerland.His Generals told him that the German Army would lose at least a million men in said attempt.Adolph,wisely scrubbed the idea.The day we lose our guns ,my friends,is the day we lose our country.

Csi_squirrle_max600_1__max50

1470 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

ssu459 says ...



This gun control hype raises its ugly head EVERY time we have a major disaster in the countryand it's cannon fodder for the Libs.Here's a tiny tidbit to mull over.In Switzerland all males between the ages of 20 to 30 are conscripted into the malitia.The Swiss have no standing Army per se.It is mandatory for said individuals to have a weapon.Officers carry and or have in their homes a Sig P220 semi auto pistol and enlisted man carry and or have in their homes a Sig 550 semi auto rifle.Switzerland ,my friends has the lowest per capata homicide rate in the world...Hmmmm,wonder why?Another fascinating item of interest that not many are cognizant of is that Hitler,during the second world war, had plans to invade Switzerland.His Generals told him that the German Army would lose at least a million men in said attempt.Adolph,wisely scrubbed the idea.The day we lose our guns ,my friends,is the day we lose our country.



You are absolutely right.  Once talk of gun control begins history, it seems is forgotten.  The second amendment was put there to protect us from our government and anyone else who wants to mess with us.  Lose that and we will be over run by mexico.

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

So, wanting to have a bit more accountability and care go into the process of acquiring guns is the same as "legislating away the 2nd Amendment"?  Noting that assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines seem to feature prominently in mass killings is "colluding in the demise of our democracy"? 


Here are some more facts:


From  http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons/   (for even more, go here)



In the absence of a ban on assault weapons, police across America report that semi-automatic assault weapons become the "weapon of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs and paramilitary extremist groups. It happened in the 1980s, before the federal assault weapons ban, and it appears to be happening again now that the law is gone.


The Brady Center report, Assault Weapons: Mass Produced Mayhem, documents the concerns of police chiefs from around the country on the increasing problem of assault weapons since 2004 (Brady Center, p. 3). For example, during the last year of ban (2004), Miami police reported that 4 percent of homicides were committed with assault weapons. In 2007, 20 percent were committed with assault weapons (Miami Herald, 2007).


Likewise, from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2007, the media reported 235 assault weapon incidents. While the number of assault weapon incidents stayed roughly the same from 2005/6 to 2006/7, the percent of incidents involving law enforcement increased by 20.7 percent (Diaz, 2010).


Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor. In the four years since the ban expired, at least 38 police officers have been killed or wounded by assault weapons (Brady Center, p. iv).


Law enforcement officers now need to carry assault weapons themselves in order to match the firepower of criminals wielding assault weapons. An informal survey of about 20 police departments conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police revealed that since 2004, all of the agencies have either added assault weapons to patrol units or replaced existing weapons with military-style assault weapons (USA Today, 2007).



 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

And:  (From  http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons/highcapacity/  )



Q. Did large-capacity ammunition magazines facilitate the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others?


A. Yes. According to law enforcement, "There's absolutely no doubt the magazines increased the lethality and the body count of this attack" (Isikoff, 2011). In just 15 seconds, the shooter was able to fire more than 30 shots from one magazine, hitting 19 people, including Representative Giffords, and killing 6, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge. The damage was limited to the firepower of his magazine; when it was empty, he was stopped while attempting to reload. Unfortunately, a large-capacity magazine enabled him to fire more than three times the rounds of a standard magazine. The increased firepower of large capacity magazines also emboldens shooters to engage in mass attacks.


Q. Have large-capacity ammunition magazines been used in other mass shootings?


A. Yes. Large capacity magazines have been used in many mass shootings, including at Virginia Tech (32 killed, 17 wounded); Fort Hood (13 killed, 34 wounded); and Columbine High School (13 killed, 23 wounded). Typical of mass killers, the Fort Hood shooter wanted a large magazine capacity, so he purchased a gun that could use 30 round magazines (Schwartz, 2010). Police chiefs across the country report increases in the use of weapons with large capacity ammunition magazines in crime and against police officers and civilians since the federal ban expired.


 


 





Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

-26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

I am not going to be hoodwinked into believeing the debate is in regard to assault rifles.What is the guarantee that the government will stop at the banning of those weapons? We are not assured they will and I doubt if it is their intention to limit it to assault weapons.I am NOT about to tolerate some blue helmeted United Nations troops to knock at my door,in the Missouri Ozarks demanding my weapons....This is not a dream but a very vivid possibility

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

 I simply stated some facts...and actually it was in response to a response that was deleted, thus the out of context quotes ("legislating..." "colluding..."). Any assumptions beyond that is entirely in the eye of the beholder.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8261 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Thanks for the reminder, mmmm.


Whenever I hear a facile term of phrase like "acquire more kills" - I tend to think of Dr. Strangelove, Nazi Germany or, if you like, what's going on in Syria right now. Folks that would use an ideological scapel to parse meaing out our documents in order to conveniently legislate away the Second Amendment would render the state the sole armed power and democracy toothless and cowed before rampant butchery. 


They are dangerously naive.


How do the rights of The People ensure the defensibility of Liberty? The Founding Fathers' notion of inalienable rights sprang out of a fervent desire never to see tyrannical reign subjugate a people again.   The Second Amendment is The People's recourse against tyrannical reign from without OR within our borders.


Reread  the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  You will understand the interlocking nature of our most precious documents.  The interlocking elements between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and within the Constitution itself all hinge on the Second Amendment.  Because without the Second Amendment, BOTH documents are stripped of The People's defense. 


The opening of the Declaration of Independence has been called one of the most beautiful sentences ever written.  The Founding Fathers were fierce and brilliant.  They did not cower:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



There is no 'pursuit of happiness without Liberty' - no Life.  An indefensible Liberty is no Liberty.


Whenever the gun control dialogue descends into a pure 'castle doctrine' debate, whenever we get lost in a debate over "protecting The People against themselves", our documents seem to get lost in the shuffle.


"Protecting the people against themselves" is a dangerous predicate.  It often means "protecting The People against itself." History has proven 'protection' can mean rounding up masses of undesireables at gunpoint then shipping them off in cattle cars.  'Protection' has taken the form of house-to-house invasions to haul families out into the streets, rape, torture and murder them in front of one another. 


The very worst states arrange disarmament of the people under the aegis of 'protecting' them.  


Those who cry, "It can't happen here!" are dangerously naiive.  Our Constitution saeguards against such naivete and cowardice.  Beware those who scoff at the idea a nation can find itself under the boot, or suddenly rent to pieces.  They will open the door to it.


The Founding Fathers understood what crimes bloody henchmen will do to gain and maintain power.   They understood The People is the one true vanguard of Liberty.   Our democratic ideals so dearly held, oursovereign nation, intact and enduring, come first and foremost.


No madman firing into a classroom or movie theatre can rob us of that duty.



 


 

2012-09-24_22-41-56_408_max50

167 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

 Your point, it seems, would be to substantiate that high-capacity magazines increase the lethality of weapons utilized in mass killings. I argue that it is the intention of the "out of his mind lunatic "would-be" mass killer" that increases the lethality.


Stop blaming the guns, and blame the actors. 


I already showed that having a 17 round magazine vs. a 10 round magazine would not make any difference to a trained shooter. Any argument against that is simply not factual, and is being made to progress an agenda.


Why not make availible only single shot magazines, that only hold 1 round. In fact, let's outlaw magazines entirely, and only allow people to carry a single bullet, Barney Phife style. We can weld up the magazine wells of all pistols and force their owners to single load rounds directly into the chamber.


Well, lets go a step further and simply ban all guns. Let's make them Illegal, since murderers surely would never do anything that is against the law while comitting a murder.


Then a few years down the road, when a nice man with a cool mustache tells you to spy on your neighbors because they might not be patriotic, and are working against the government, you will listen. Then when they start making people disappear, because they do not support the agenda of the Government, you will let them.


Then one day they come for you, or your wife, or your mother, and you cannot defend yourself because you GAVE AWAY YOUR GUNS.


Well, at least the latest shooter in a mass killing was only able to sustain a rate of 15 rounds per minute, rather than 17 rounds per minute. What a Victory...


Hmm. Man, History, gets ya every time. 


Learn it, love it, embrace it, or repeat it. your choice.


 


 


 


In a world where there are Sheep and Wolves,
I am the Sheepdog.
Ranger Up!

I am NOT a hero
but I know a few

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

No, it's the inanity of the slippery slope argument that gets me every time, actually. Hyperbole aside, there's no reason to believe that it can't be both the tools and the actors.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

2012-09-24_22-41-56_408_max50

167 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

 MarlyB, great post.


When you give up Liberty for Security, you get neither.


In a world where there are Sheep and Wolves,
I am the Sheepdog.
Ranger Up!

I am NOT a hero
but I know a few

Th_policeavatar_2__max50

734 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 2 years ago

 

One-If someone now tells me I cannot own an AR15 or any other, whats next? Which refrigerator I only can buy, which car is acceptable. This great country was built with sweat of good men who were armed. Our society has degenerated to the point of blaming the inanimate object and not the evil members of it. Everyone who is anti-gun is anti-gun up to a point. Like when someone is standing over their childs bed with a knife or gun. Then its "I wish I had one".


As to the Colorado movie theatre shooting, no one had a legally concealed handgun because the owner of the private property had posted the requisite "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" signs so law abiding citizens did what they were supposed to do. To bad Holmes didn't read the sign.


""Life is a storm.. You will bask in the sunlight one moment, be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes"
Alexander Dumas-The Count of Monte Christo

My_new_gun_max50

239 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Mandatory death sentence.  Start punishing those who break the law instead of pampering them.  If we take this route the next thing will be banning movies because they force evil intentions on folk. Joking but that's how rediculouss things have become.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

In my opinion, harsher punishment will reduce gun crime. It should be life in prison upon conviction for Murder 1st and 2nd degree, Rape1st, and Robbery 1st degree. The deterrent is what stops them, not legislation....fear is and has always been a strong deterrent. As a gun owner I am responsible for the proper use of my firearms and the safety of others....criminals don't do that.


 

Nintendo_max50

881 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

mz66 says ...



I have a feeling very few people will read the link I posted above. I really get tired of having a "discussion" when it's not really a discussion at all it's just a bunch of hard-headed people (myself included) talking at each other and not to each other.



 


mz66, first off I want to start off by saying I respect you as a serious and intelligent individual who has a lot to offer this website.  I read your posts frequently (and will continue to do so) because I know you put thought into them.  However, I think the information given by your linked source might be a bit skewed (as is much in the media).  I offer the following which may help clear up some of the bias in the article:


http://pjmedia.com/blog/ezra-kleins-facts-about-guns-tell-slanted-story/?singlepage=true


 


I think it's best if people read both articles to get a better understanding of the process by which these statistics are being compiled. 


 


I know there will be those who are going to have their beliefs regardless of what they read.  In my attempt to stay well rounded in my knowledge of national and worldly events and issues, I take in news from the "left" and "right".  By this I mean, I will watch "Fox" and "MSNBC" and listen to a local conservative radio station as well as NPR. I can usually point out holes on both sides and sometimes fill those holes with some outside research.


"I have a strict gun control policy. If there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."

- Clint Eastwood

Csi_squirrle_max600_1__max50

1470 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

mz66 I noticed that you completely ignored my history lesson.  Most people who favor "gun control" do.  The right of the people to arm themselves can not be infringed.  Period.  Worrying about things like magazine capacity is simply rearranging deck chairs.  The myth of the high capacity magazines is just that.  Like I said in my earlier post, other than laying down supressive fire magazine capacity has no effect.  Go on you tube.  There is a guy who can fire six rounds from a revolver, reload and fire six more rounds, all twelve on target, in less than three seconds. 


As long as there are people intent and willing to do so innocent people will be killed.  No amount of legislation will ever change that.  What you are proposing only weakens this country.  Please, if you can put forth an argument against the history of the second amendment. 

Hs_max50

202 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Edit: FYI I did check the links and I am quite familiar with the Brady Campaign, and would like to add that they do not show the statistics to crimes prevented or thwarted by the presence of a firearm because these statistics are rarely kept if it is even a recordable incident.


From a popular rant



Guns don't kill people, but they make it easier for people to kill. Yeah so does a lincoln town car. A metal grill can't hurt much of anything but you put a V8 behind it you can make a whole family of four eat 120 mile an hour screaming rush hour death without scratching your arse twice. Let's get rid of the cars. Hey we've got hi-jackers lets get rid of the airplanes. You could surely cut someone with the corner of that KY tube. Hey 3d vision makes killing alot easier, it's just not the same running someone through with a fireplace poker without depth perception. Let's poke an eye out of everyone at birth.



Violence is in the people not the weapons. Take away the guns and they'll stab each other. Take away the knives and they'll throw drano on each other. Take away the drano and they'll try to gag each other. Even if you had no weapons at all, where do you think kung fu came from? What were ancient chinese people without weapons doing? Trying to find just the right way to bounce a rice pattie off someones head so that it would shatter their spinal column. 


Take all the anti-gun energy and put it into anti-violence.



This is my rifle. (God bless Texas) And I will use it to protect myself and others. That is what it is there for.



I'm not out to kill anyone. But it is an "evil black rifle" and thus should be banned. According to proponents of Gun Control.


I'm not about to give it up no matter what law is passed because even if you ban them criminals will get their hands on them still. And I like to have just as much if not more firepower than the bad guy. Doesn't matter what body armor they wear it won't hold up to 30 62gr 5.56 slugs if it even holds up to one or two.


Bottom line, screw "resistance free zones" The number one priority should be to preserve life. And in the instances with mass shootings the quickest means to an end is put them down as quickly as possible. I won't roll over for anyone trying to murder me or anyone else armed or not. If that's what you want for yourself more power to ya, but don't try to force that belief on me. Just wear a sign that says I'm anti-gun and I won't force my belief on you either.


Done ranting. Thnx.



Funny how the only enumerated right that contains the phrase "shall not be infringed" suffers the heaviest regulation. I'm still trying to find where it says anything about hunting and targets.

Hs_max50

202 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Just a quick follow up...


 All of this can be found on Texas' DPS website in a detailed report.


These are the crime rates for the state of Texas from 2000-2010 by year. No per-capita firearm non-firearm related twisting just the final numbers.


Look at each decade analysis and remember Texas Castle Doctrine went into effect Sept 1, 2007.


 


Aggrivated Assault



Burglary



Murder



Rape



Robbery



Theft



And my favorite because this is where it had the most benefit by enabling to carry in a vehicle without a CCP


Vehicle Theft



Armed citizens combined with the excellent work of law enforcement has leveled the playing field greatly for the good guys.


While this does not reflect the outcome of such a law in all states, (ex Florida where crime went up before it came down) it is highly subjective to the populations willingness to use it. And well being Texas... I would love to see the raw statistics for crimes thwarted by firearms.


Funny how the only enumerated right that contains the phrase "shall not be infringed" suffers the heaviest regulation. I'm still trying to find where it says anything about hunting and targets.

-26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Congrats SlowMotion,very well compiled

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

DoubleT213 says ...



Ladies and gentlemen, guns are out there. As they are already out there to think for one minute that banning a type of firearms, magazines of high capacity, or banning firearms completely is going to stop gun violence in this country you are sadly mistaken and very naive'. See, to get someone to give up their guns, if ever outlawed, would require them to "obey the law". By definition criminals do NOT obey the law. Therefore they will not give up their guns. All you will do is create more victims. You can choose to not believe this but you would be fooling yourself.


The only other thing I would like to say is, for God's sake, stop calling his rifle an "assault weapon". It was not. Again, by definition, and assault weapon must be a "select fire" weapon. That means it MUST be capable of automatic fire. His was not. It is a rifle, period. That is all I have to say about it so I now return you to you regularly scheduled debate.



BUMP...

Newpatch_sq90_max50

6037 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Cut  the Barf, I can sum this up in a few words.  Use both hands for Gun control.


Photobucket
In Memory of the Fallen Officers

MODERATOR 3

671f3aa2343697f9cff5b40d6ede80bb_max50

30 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

JIMROC says ...



Cut  the Barf, I can sum this up in a few words.  Use both hands for Gun control.



BUMP !!!

Hs_max50

202 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

JIMROC says ...



Cut  the Barf, I can sum this up in a few words.  Use both hands for Gun control.




Funny how the only enumerated right that contains the phrase "shall not be infringed" suffers the heaviest regulation. I'm still trying to find where it says anything about hunting and targets.

My_new_gun_max50

239 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Gun Control  I vote NO, NONE,...NODA.....   Gun control as far as hitting what you are shooting at.....YES...stop the threat.


Ownership of an Ak-47 or any other hi-cap mag  (firearm regardless of what you choose to call it)   I vote YES and why? Because this is America and I have the freedom to do so. For those who don't wish to own such a firearm,  it is your choice and you are FREE to decide.


Assault weapon....hmmmm.....that applies to anything used to committ an attack upon another human with intent to do bodily injury may have an end result  causing the  death of someone. I am glad our forefathers had the most modern up to date and state of the art piece of freedom sculpting tool, the musket married to a steel bayonet. Sure glad they weren't handicapped with David's sling and stone, Cain's choice of assault weapon: rock or stone not sure which,  or Robin Hood's bow and arrow.


US gun ownership declining??? Where has this guy been the last three years? Gun sales are on the rise. Fiirst time buyers are at an all time high. Firearms manufacturers report all time record production. I have to get on a list of backorders in order to obtain firearms.


American the most violent nation on the planet???!!! HOLY COW....define what is meant by violent. We aren't marching into homes and wiping out neighbor hoods and families at some dictator's whims. We aren't crushing babies head's under boot heals. We are slaughtering them in their mother's wombs...that is violence and yes we are guilty of that. We have violence demonstrated through Hollywood productions which people pay to see. We live in violent WORLD.  I will cease me babbling.


 


 


 

Copy_of_oct3_2012_max50

2503 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

We don't have to look to far back in history to see what the Nazis did to the Jews.  It was not done over night but little by little their rights were taken away.  They were declared a  threats to the state.   Taking away our guns is just one step in the precess to take away our rights as citizens.  


 


 


 


 


 


YaYa Sister

Gods_team_max160_max50

154 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Automobiles cause more death than anything else in this country, so I think we should make cars illegal before guns we would all be safer if we just rode horses!

Elk_max50

100 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 2 years ago

 

Big Happy, I think you are right, lets stick to horses....oh and guns!!  When someone drives drunk and kills someone, people call it a horrible accident. However.... that person made a choice to drink and drive, it was no accident. Let's ban alcohol...The reason they dont? Probably  because alcohol doese not kill people, People kill people.  I think I have seen this before.