DukeNukeEm

"Yes, yes.... mock them! By the people, for the people... right? Were here to help. Trust us."

You know what, I'm finally starting to realize that has never been about preventing tragedies. You want guns gone because all you useless, lazy liberals have been on a 40 year mission to eliminate property rights in this country. Unfortunately so many people are armed that you cannot do that. So you work everyone into a frenzy over the dangers of made-up things like assault weapons hoping you can convince the government (who is all too willing to assume control over all private property) and disable our defense against your attempts at theft. Then you'll be free to loot and pillage all you want, build you little collective hellscape. Some of you probably dont want to admit that this your goal, others probably are just along for the ride and would be horrified if what you're clamoring for actually came to fruition. You cede our rights to defend ourselves and we'll be slaves to the federal government.

When's the last time a machine gun was used in a mass shooting? has that ever happened? you dont know what a machine gun is. You dont even have to know what you're talking about, just BAN BAN BAN.

Good for other countries in the world. When they become the lone superpower they can talk, I dont give a s***. Its my right as an American, not my non-right as a non-American. EDIT- I have to run, I'll respond to this liberal nonsense later tonight when I get off work.

Because when you give anyone who wants to empower the government an inch they're going to take a mile. Even if there are some restrictions that might be useful I'd still be against them because its just bringing us one step closer to the ultimate goal of a total ban.

Too late. I didn't grow up around guns either, I lived in Cook County until I was 18 (and now I'm back... seriously, what the f***?). But I'm glad the gun grabbers all rejoiced at your post even if it was just meaningless platitudes. What do you want to do about it then? How are you going to rectify your first point with your second? The solution for a long, long time has been, more or less, that if you want a gun go get one and if you dont want to be armed you dont have to. How are you going to expand on that? Be careful, your gun grabbing friends who worship at the altar of the federal government are relying on you to come up with something here. Wouldn't want to let them down.

I dont give a f*** what teachers want or dont want in the classroom, stopped giving a s*** about them when they all walked out on their jobs in Chicago because they weren't going to get a big enough raise. They're beholden to us, the taxpayer, we sign their checks and we chose what goes down in their schools. If they dont like it they can quit and work somewhere else like the rest of us when forces outside our control make our lives miserable at work.

I've mentioned this earlier, You can do whatever you damn well please with a car on your own property. Dont even need to have a license, if you own enough land you can get absolutely drunk off your tits and drive your car around like a banshee. You can even build something that gets 10 gallons to the mile and farts out the emissions of a 747. Its your machine, its your property and you can do whatever you want with it on your property. Public roads are where you have to start playing by rules. Why cant we say the same about guns? Let's say I own an M249 (SAW LMG, you've seen them in movies). What's wrong with me owning it if I keep it on my property? Why do you f***ing care? You say "Oh, well this and that type weapon should be BANNED" because it has scary names like assault weapon (not even a real thing really) and semi-automatic. And then everything else should be kept track of by the government, even if we never take them out in public. So why the difference? What changes? I'm guessing its just because today we have no respect for property rights. I mean, the government never really has (and never really will), but when people themselves start calling for it you know were in trouble.

Actually by saying you dont drink you're also saying "I dont suffer or inflict on others the negative consequences of drinking". When I say I have firearms, but dont commit crimes with them I'm also saying "I dont suffer or inflict on others the negative consequences of gun rights".

Cigarettes supposedly kill other people, which is why liberals again decided they just knew better and told people how to run their businesses.

I don't use my guns to kill people. Try again.

My best guess is nobody would've been shot, but it is a crime to brandish a weapon no matter what.

Awww look, its trolling now.

Because they like drinking and don't want the government telling them they can't do it anymore.

You've obviously never been the victim of a violent crime. Don't worry, if you live in Chicago or frequent other gun-free zones you will be.

That would require liberals to stop caring what other law abiding citizens do, we know that'll never happen.

Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. You would be too, but you're too self-conscious to admit it.

Fantasy? I would've gotten the f*** out of there even if I was carrying. My chances would still be better running than getting a firefight. But if there was nowhere to run, yea I'd rather have a gun in that situation and so would you.

A lot more than 26 people have been killed by the AR platform. That doesn't change the intended function of the weapon or how quickly it would lose its killing effectiveness if someone was there to stop this loon.

You can kill someone with a BB gun if they're completely defenseless. The 5.56 round is not going to be fatal unless the target is hit in the chest, neck or head.

Because the next largest projectile weapon in the building was a spitball shooter. He was uncontested even with his dumb tacticool AR that miraculously didn't jam after 2 magazines.

Honestly, you're going to have to get more specific. A 5.56 round is designed to wound, not kill. But that's not the only ammunition these types of weapons take, and I mean there is really no such thing as an "assault weapon". That label has been bred by a combination of fear mongering media and Call of Duty kids. Are you just talking about weapons that are plastic and/or black? Stuff that's scary looking? I dont get it.

Once you start down this road, of the government protecting us from literally everything, you get a stupid population coerced into homogenous behavior.

I've heard this crock of s*** before. After the first states put seat belt laws on the books insurance rates actually rose faster. 1% increase per year over the next 5 years, really saved Americans a ton of money, right!? Also there's evidence that not fining people who didn't wear seat belts was equally effective as fining them. But who cares, government gets paid, we get to "PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and feel good and you pretend to save money on car insurance.

Rather be that than naively believing in the federal government.