Yeah, yeah, yeah. When you have to live through August in the South then you can tell me about the restraint of New England. When your weather is lousy it's actually harder to shoot someone.
lain:
Last edited:
Shots fired near Cal Sate University Northridge; students receiving reverse 911 calls
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
lain: 
jzeidler
New member
Shots fired near Cal Sate University Northridge; students receiving reverse 9...
Shots fired near Cal Sate University Northridge; students receiving reverse 9...
The gun is not to blame it is purely an object with no capability to harm anyone unless used by the wrong person. And who is to decide who should have guns? The liberals who hate the right? or only have the government have guns making this place even more tyrannical? The fact of the matter is that the laws in place now are good and no one should be able to deny anyone the ability to protect ones self which is what liberals are proposing because liberals blame an object for something when they should be blaming the person. And why are liberals focussing on guns? Cars kill three times the amount of people guns do. Should we ban all cars now? The liberal argument is illogical and threatens freedom at the foundation. The freedom that shouts "I have a right to defend myself, those I love, and my own property!" I stand for the second amendment, our forefathers were much smarter than these fearfully sculling liberals and if they get their way tyranny will rule because people won't be able to stand against it. I want a free America!
http://youtu.be/Lh1zornUVv8
Those who believe that the second amendment is for muskets are dead wrong and honestly would have to think that the founding fathers must have been full on idiots since in order to believe such nonsense you would have to think that they didn't think the technology of guns would advance. Also, if the second amendment was only for muskets Thomas Jefferson would have never authorized a privately owned ship to have full on artillery cannons on it. Here's why those who say the second amendment is only for muskets are 100% wrong and just need to stop talking because they are misinforming the people:
http://youtu.be/CquUBWHU2_s
Many liberals try and use the term "well regulated" to mean that the government needs to rule over. But here's what "well regulated" means:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
I finish this comment with a quote by Gandhi:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
"Don't Tread on Me!"
Shots fired near Cal Sate University Northridge; students receiving reverse 9...
The gun is not to blame it is purely an object with no capability to harm anyone unless used by the wrong person. And who is to decide who should have guns? The liberals who hate the right? or only have the government have guns making this place even more tyrannical? The fact of the matter is that the laws in place now are good and no one should be able to deny anyone the ability to protect ones self which is what liberals are proposing because liberals blame an object for something when they should be blaming the person. And why are liberals focussing on guns? Cars kill three times the amount of people guns do. Should we ban all cars now? The liberal argument is illogical and threatens freedom at the foundation. The freedom that shouts "I have a right to defend myself, those I love, and my own property!" I stand for the second amendment, our forefathers were much smarter than these fearfully sculling liberals and if they get their way tyranny will rule because people won't be able to stand against it. I want a free America!
http://youtu.be/Lh1zornUVv8
Those who believe that the second amendment is for muskets are dead wrong and honestly would have to think that the founding fathers must have been full on idiots since in order to believe such nonsense you would have to think that they didn't think the technology of guns would advance. Also, if the second amendment was only for muskets Thomas Jefferson would have never authorized a privately owned ship to have full on artillery cannons on it. Here's why those who say the second amendment is only for muskets are 100% wrong and just need to stop talking because they are misinforming the people:
http://youtu.be/CquUBWHU2_s
Many liberals try and use the term "well regulated" to mean that the government needs to rule over. But here's what "well regulated" means:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
I finish this comment with a quote by Gandhi:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
"Don't Tread on Me!"
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
gcthomas
New member
For someone keen on rejecting misinformation, you have repeated the old canard about Ghandi. Interestingly, the Arms Act of 1959 that he refers to did not ban firearms.
It DID ban people from having more than three on his person (like the recent mass shooter carried), or carrying assault weapons, carrying weapons when under the age of 21. Those sentenced to 5 years or more in prison were also barred.
Anyone else could apply for a license if they had a reason to have a firearm: for example for personal or property protection.
I wonder why so many pro-gun people keep paraphrasing Ghandi?
