The *** Control debate thread

[sean miguel]

O'Reilly said on several occasions he was in favor of mandatory background checks for every *** purchase, he recently talked about restricting some kind of guns...

Seems like even Fox News is on Team ***-Control now.

The Orlando shooter didn't use an AR-15 assault rifle but a Sig Sauer MCX which is considered a sporting rifle. But who cares? Any firearm is designed to fire a projectile meant to **** something. The Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns - a .22 and a 9mm to **** 32 people. If your targets are unarmed and sitting ducks, then it really doesn't matter what type of firearm you're using. If you're ferocious enough, you could accomplish the same body count with a machete or a handaxe.

 

[Supafly]

It s fascinating how many excuses or side roads you *** crazy guys take instead of acting on regulating firearms. It's like crackheads talking about, how they cancontrol it, how it's not abig deal, or whatever.

You are addicted.

 

[Johan]

The Orlando shooter didn't use an AR-15 assault rifle but a Sig Sauer MCX which is considered a sporting rifle. But who cares? Any firearm is designed to fire a projectile meant to **** something. The Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns - a .22 and a 9mm to **** 32 people. If your targets are unarmed and sitting ducks, then it really doesn't matter what type of firearm you're using. If you're ferocious enough, you could accomplish the same body count with a machete or a handaxe.

Then why do all wackos use guns ? Why don't they use axes and machetes ? Why so few mass-axing ?
It's a fact, it's much easier to **** many people if you're armed with a *** that can fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time without needing to reload. From 1994 to 2004, there was a federal ban on assault weapon. Did you felt unsafe during these years ? As far as I know the US did not collapsed during these years ? Was there as much mass shootings in the US during these years ?


And what about background checks ? How do you feel about not allowing people on the terrorist watch-list to buy guns ?

 

[meesterperfect]

If you believe that mass shooting in FL was real and it was carried out by a guy with a *** holding 300+ people hostage for 3 hours, shooting 1 out of 3 of them some multiple times while keeping the entire Orando police *****, County Sherriffs, and state police plus all those homosexual men many of whom are very strong and in great shape plus SWAT and snipers while simultaniously taking everyones cel phone so they couldn't record any video or audio and post it on social media to prove this actually did happen and there were no security cameras in this club while calling 9/11 several times and TV stations praising Allah and ISIS while posting things on facebook and texting his wife and that there is no possibilty that he was a patsy who was a patron there and fit the bill for a muslim gay hating ******ing lone nut to pass laws putting the states rights on *** control into the DHS then let me ask you this:
That was a *** free zone right?
Had there been a sign at the entrance that said, "Warning- Some of our patrons may be carrying concealed firearms. Maybe like 20% or something- Enter at own risk". Do you think Omar the Arab or anybody else might have thought twice before going on a mutli tasking ****ing spree?

No offense but if you think unarming law abiding citizens will make us safer and if you think the GOV gives 2 poops about our safety then you may be in the class of the dumbest of the dumb.

 

[Supafly]

If you believe that mass shooting in FL was real and it was carried out by a guy with a *** holding 300+ people hostage for 3 hours, shooting 1 out of 3 of them some multiple times while keeping the entire Orando police *****, County Sherriffs, and state police plus all those homosexual men many of whom are very strong and in great shape plus SWAT and snipers while simultaniously taking everyones cel phone so they couldn't record any video or audio and post it on social media to prove this actually did happen and there were no security cameras in this club while calling 9/11 several times and TV stations praising Allah and ISIS while posting things on facebook and texting his wife and that there is no possibilty that he was a patsy who was a patron there and fit the bill for a muslim gay hating ******ing lone nut to pass laws putting the states rights on *** control into the DHS then let me ask you this:
That was a *** free zone right?
Had there been a sign at the entrance that said, "Warning- Some of our patrons may be carrying concealed firearms. Maybe like 20% or something- Enter at own risk". Do you think Omar the Arab or anybody else might have thought twice before going on a mutli tasking ****ing spree?

No offense but if you think unarming law abiding citizens will make us safer and if you think the GOV gives 2 poops about our safety then you may be in the class of the dumbest of the dumb.

One more thing:

If you ask a psychiatrist, the number one sign for being severely psychologically challenged is lack of empathy. Add your total fascination for firearms, and severe paranoia... you show all the signs of somebody who may well go missing from FreeOnes because they don't prvide WLAN in prisons, as the aftermath of the Bundy Standoff in Oregon showed.

Don't be like that.

 

[meesterperfect]

What are you talking about?
I have empathy and sympathy more than most.
And for anybody who is a victim.
And if people died in Orlando I do for them as well. I think at this point people did die, but I;m still not sure.

I don't buy what they are selling on this at all. You want to believe this stuff ok, I don't. That's true.
But that is for the other thread.

I have far from a fascination with firearms. I just know enough to see that disarming citizens with no criminal record will not reduce crime it will increase it.
Go to Colombia or Brazil where people can't legally buy guns. Even in the rich areas there are bars on the windows, barbed wire on peoples fences, even glass shards on top of concrete fences.
Go to Argentina where they are allowed to own guns and you really don't see that stuff.

And you know what else? *** crime is down many years in a row now.
******s and gunshot victims are are going down nationwide.
And the amount of *** owners is going up. Ive been reading that the GOV has been getting overwhelmed with firearm ID apps the past few years.
I do believe most of these mass shooting the past few years are hoaxes and false flags. Sometimes people die, sometimes nobody dies.
When discussing this with anyone I find the people who have actually spent time researching it all believe what I believe. Its the ones who just go by what mainstream media and the GOV say and look no further that don't believe it.

So about my sign at the club? What do you think? Effective deterent?

 

[sean miguel]

an off duty police officer protects himself:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=009_1466199244

get trained. know it. learn it.

 

[sean miguel]

Your personal protection at that moment is up to you.

 

[meesterperfect]

Yeah I heard about that Fag, I 'm mean Flag. Sorry.
It's the Gay and Lesbian Rainbow theme combined with the Don't Tread on Me snake.
I had heard it said, "We Shoot Back".

I'll tell you that is another problem I have with this whole thing. When I lived in another country I knew many homosexuals from the gym.
Those were the guys that really pushed themselves. These were strong tough men.
And it's the same in the USA although here many homosexuals have that whole girly girl thing going too.
But the majority are men in very good shape. Strong guys.
Combine with that the unity they feel, especially in THEIR club, their space.
Plus many there were probably partners as they say. That brings out very protective instincts.
The media wants us to think they are all feminine nancy boys. It's just not reality.
I have a problem with the official story so far in many ways. The fact that these guys, maybe 200+of them didn't fight back against 1 guy I find unbelievable.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

post images

One .40 magazine. Off hand. Rapid fire.

 

[ritingfunny@yah]

Second Amendment is NOT an unqualified right. The first 13 words say it all. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.' The founders did NOT envision everyone in the US with a firearm. And the purpose of the amendment has its roots in medieval Britain, when a monarch grew tired of all his treasure going to maintain an army. So he allowed everyone to have weapons in the interest of if say, France attacked, he'd have a ready fighting *****, but wouldn't really have to pay for it. Likewise, when the Second Amendment was debated and ******, the main concern was a large national debt, and a very real, very legitimate fear of a large military. You also have to take into account that guns then and guns now are two completely different concepts. Given the accuracy of a barrel that isn't rifled, it'd often be more feasible to just throw your weapon at the enemy. (Hence, the bayonet. )

That aside, NO ONE on the "*** control" side of this argument has said they want private, legal firearms confiscated. And when you think about it, trying to confiscate firearms like they did in Australia would result ina bloodbath that would make the Civil War look like a cricket match. IF you could even get *************** or the military or whomever to enforce a foolish confiscation law. No one wants to take your *** away, and no one is saying enhanced background checks would end ALL mass shootings. But eliminating the problem has never been and will never be the objective in regard to public safety laws. If someone has shown themselves to be irresponsible on the road, they're not allowed to drive. However, in many cases, they still do. So should we eliminate ALL laws regarding irresponsible driving because they don't work 100% of the time? The purpose of public safety legislation is to maybe make it a bit harder for those who wish to do others harm to do that harm. I now live in Europe, where private ownership of guns is rarely if ever allowed. It hasn't stopped ******, and no, it didn't stop the recent attacks in Belgium and France, but look at the crime statistics. I have no problem with you owning a *** if you're responsible with it. I have a HUGE problem with people who think because they ****** a concealed carry background check, it qualifies them to handle tactical situations. And I have an even bigger problem with people who are willing to put the safety of me and my ****** at risk because of a stupid insistence on owning a ***. A great example of this being the man in Georgia, who was showing his new *** to a friend IN CHURCH, and it went off, and ****ed a woman in the next room.

*** advocates portray guns as good and opponents portray them as bad. I just think they're inanimate tools that are only as good or as bad as the person holding them. But they are life-threateningly dangerous, and should be regulated.

- - - Updated - - -

post images

One .40 magazine. Off hand. Rapid fire.

This will serve you VERY well should a rampaging gang of paper targets suddenly descend on your house.

 

[sean miguel]

Second Amendment is NOT an unqualified right. The first 13 words say it all. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.' The founders did NOT envision everyone in the US with a firearm. And the purpose of the amendment has its roots in medieval Britain, when a monarch grew tired of all his treasure going to maintain an army. So he allowed everyone to have weapons in the interest of if say, France attacked, he'd have a ready fighting *****, but wouldn't really have to pay for it. Likewise, when the Second Amendment was debated and ******, the main concern was a large national debt, and a very real, very legitimate fear of a large military. You also have to take into account that guns then and guns now are two completely different concepts. Given the accuracy of a barrel that isn't rifled, it'd often be more feasible to just throw your weapon at the enemy. (Hence, the bayonet. )

That aside, NO ONE on the "*** control" side of this argument has said they want private, legal firearms confiscated. And when you think about it, trying to confiscate firearms like they did in Australia would result ina bloodbath that would make the Civil War look like a cricket match. IF you could even get *************** or the military or whomever to enforce a foolish confiscation law. No one wants to take your *** away, and no one is saying enhanced background checks would end ALL mass shootings. But eliminating the problem has never been and will never be the objective in regard to public safety laws. If someone has shown themselves to be irresponsible on the road, they're not allowed to drive. However, in many cases, they still do. So should we eliminate ALL laws regarding irresponsible driving because they don't work 100% of the time? The purpose of public safety legislation is to maybe make it a bit harder for those who wish to do others harm to do that harm. I now live in Europe, where private ownership of guns is rarely if ever allowed. It hasn't stopped ******, and no, it didn't stop the recent attacks in Belgium and France, but look at the crime statistics. I have no problem with you owning a *** if you're responsible with it. I have a HUGE problem with people who think because they ****** a concealed carry background check, it qualifies them to handle tactical situations. And I have an even bigger problem with people who are willing to put the safety of me and my ****** at risk because of a stupid insistence on owning a ***. A great example of this being the man in Georgia, who was showing his new *** to a friend IN CHURCH, and it went off, and ****ed a woman in the next room.

*** advocates portray guns as good and opponents portray them as bad. I just think they're inanimate tools that are only as good or as bad as the person holding them. But they are life-threateningly dangerous, and should be regulated.

- - - Updated - - -



This will serve you VERY well should a rampaging gang of paper targets suddenly descend on your house.

In a tactical situation, it seems Ace can hit what he's aiming for.

If you're in a situation (say a gay night club for instance) and someone pulls out a rifle and starts executing people one by one, you have the choice of waiting on the floor for your turn or firing back which would it be?

 

[sean miguel]

That aside, NO ONE on the "*** control" side of this argument has said they want private, legal firearms confiscated. And when you think about it, trying to confiscate firearms like they did in Australia would result ina bloodbath that would make the Civil War look like a cricket match. IF you could even get *************** or the military or whomever to enforce a foolish confiscation law. No one wants to take your *** away, and no one is saying enhanced background checks would end ALL mass shootings. But eliminating the problem has never been and will never be the objective in regard to public safety laws. If someone has shown themselves to be irresponsible on the road, they're not allowed to drive. However, in many cases, they still do. So should we eliminate ALL laws regarding irresponsible driving because they don't work 100% of the time? The purpose of public safety legislation is to maybe make it a bit harder for those who wish to do others harm to do that harm. I now live in Europe, where private ownership of guns is rarely if ever allowed. It hasn't stopped ******, and no, it didn't stop the recent attacks in Belgium and France, but look at the crime statistics. I have no problem with you owning a *** if you're responsible with it. I have a HUGE problem with people who think because they ****** a concealed carry background check, it qualifies them to handle tactical situations. And I have an even bigger problem with people who are willing to put the safety of me and my ****** at risk because of a stupid insistence on owning a ***. A great example of this being the man in Georgia, who was showing his new *** to a friend IN CHURCH, and it went off, and ****ed a woman in the next room.

*** advocates portray guns as good and opponents portray them as bad. I just think they're inanimate tools that are only as good or as bad as the person holding them. But they are life-threateningly dangerous, and should be regulated.

The Orlando shooter ****** all of his criminal background checks, was a licensed armed security officer, and according to the FBI, turned up nothing in their probe and was taken off their watch list. What other laws would have prevented him from getting a ***? Should he have been ****** from purchasing a *** based on his religion or his ethnicity?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

. The first 13 words say it all. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.' The founders did NOT envision everyone in the US with a firearm. And the purpose of the amendment has its roots in medieval Britain, when a monarch grew tired of all his treasure going to maintain an army. So he allowed everyone to have weapons in the interest of if say, France attacked, he'd have a ready fighting *****, but wouldn't really have to pay for it. Likewise, when the Second Amendment was debated and ******, the main concern was a large national debt, and a very real, very legitimate fear of a large military. You also have to take into account that guns then and guns now are two completely different concepts. Given the accuracy of a barrel that isn't rifled, it'd often be more feasible to just throw your weapon at the enemy. (Hence, the bayonet. )

This will serve you VERY well should a rampaging gang of paper targets suddenly descend on your house.

"Well regulated" means well equipped and trained, not supervised. At least that's what the Supremes decided.

I've had more tactical training than you could possibly imagine. So, yes, in the event of a paper apocalypse, I will be prepared.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

And yes, there are people out there who believe the entire country should be disarmed. That idiot, Samantha Bee on TBS springs readily to mind. What strikes me as really stupid and short sighted is that we already have a threat which has proven several times that they're willing to shoot people in areas where they know the majority or all of the people are unarmed. Criminals, regardless of how many stupid laws are enacted, will always be able to procure weapons. Since when have criminals paid attention to the law?

 

[Straight Shooter]

And yes, there are people out there who believe the entire country should be disarmed. That idiot, Samantha Bee on TBS springs readily to mind. What strikes me as really stupid and short sighted is that we already have a threat which has proven several times that they're willing to shoot people in areas where they know the majority or all of the people are unarmed. Criminals, regardless of how many stupid laws are enacted, will always be able to procure weapons. Since when have criminals paid attention to the law?

That's a line I've heard many a times. By saying that you're basically against the entire criminal code. Why do we have laws that say ****** is *******? why do we have laws that say stealing is *******? What's the point of laws then if criminals don't abide by them? We might as well get rid of all laws then

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

No. I'm saying there are enough *** laws. They just need to enforce them, especially in Chicago. How many federal firearms charges have been filed against the thugs there in the last seven years?

 

[Johan]

"Well regulated" means well equipped and trained, not supervised. At least that's what the Supremes decided.

I've had more tactical training than you could possibly imagine. So, yes, in the event of a paper apocalypse, I will be prepared.

Then let's make *** training mandatory for every *** purchase. At least it would diminish the number of *** accidents with little Timmy reaching to *****'s *** and firing on his friends as they are playing.

 

[Straight Shooter]

No. I'm saying there are enough *** laws. They just need to enforce them, especially in Chicago. How many federal firearms charges have been filed against the thugs there in the last seven years?

Ah good question. So Chicago has the strictest *** laws right? Not really. A common sentence in state court for *** possession for offenders without other felonies is one year in prison, which is really just 6 months. Here's some facts, while it may be hard to get a *** in Chicago it's not that hard to go to the surrounding counties or next door to Indiana to get your ***. 60% of guns recovered in an arrest are from out of state with 24% being from Indiana. If people think that the punitive *** laws are key to why Chicago is how it is, they are sadly misinformed. The problems are much more complex than that and are ones that only Chicagoans who are here on the ground would know

 

[Supafly]

No. I'm saying there are enough *** laws. They just need to enforce them, especially in Chicago. How many federal firearms charges have been filed against the thugs there in the last seven years?

No there are not.