New Zealand's response to the murder of 50 unarmed people? Disarm thousands more.
But New Hampshire's got a much lower murder rate than California does.
and in america, where 80% of gun related homicides are drug and gang related, overwhelmingly committed by blacks and hispanics, the "solution" promoted by the retarded left is `to take away guns from everybody
these are the same retards who didn't want TSA targetting young male mooslims and insisted they give the same level of scrutiny to Betty White clones :doh:
I found it odd that TSA would single out a mother with her child or a military veteran, and do everything short of a cavity search, but never mind the middle eastern guy with the turban going through security, he's fine.
I say if you want to reduce the amount of terrorism, stop letting groups known for terrorism through the borders and security checks without searching them.
Racial profiling?
Probably.
Politically incorrect?
Definitely.
Should it be done?
Yes, especially when the majority of terrorist attacks come mainly from one ethnic group
New Zealand's response to the murder of 50 unarmed people? Disarm thousands more.
giving these retards access to social media is like giving a machine gun to a chimp
https://youtu.be/GhxqIITtTtU:darwinsm:
i hadn't seen it before - picked up the expression from Better Call Saul
that's hilarious
reminds me of this one - a chimp with an RPG:
all of the captioned one's are TOL-unfriendly, but you can imagine
Wakanda special forces lol
Curious george alternative ending
That's actually not responsive to what I said.Nope.
I quoted what you said and responded to it.
You accidentally put a comma in that. I'm also not the moon, a good kidney pie, or income tax. I'm not any number of things I've never claimed to be.Sorry, you're not the arbiter of what is and isn't a right.
It has elsewhere. I'm optimistic that it will here too, eventually. Though it may have to reach a point where most people suffer or know someone who suffered as a result of the needless damage a want of serious restriction carries as a cost before there's enough national will to combat the forces of opposition effectively.We know. It won't do any good.
It's prima facie true that the right to own firearms is not the right to any sort of firearm.
The right to self defense.
There is no right to own firearms.
That's nearly a.The right to self defense.
There is in my country.There is no right to own firearms.
... sentence?That's nearly a ...
There is in my country.
That's the ticket.... sentence?
In my country that's gives us the right to own firearms...maybe it just covers tank tops in yours.Nope. It's a right to bear arms.
The real (and funnier) question involves why you do believe that you do.Why do I know your law better than you do?
Given that you seem to have conceded the point, this is kinda silly on your part.The real (and funnier) question involves why you do believe that you do.
Meanwhile, countries (unlike mine) that remove the guns I'm objecting to from their stream of commerce have lower rates of gun violence and death...lower murder rates too. :thumb:
That's funnier still. Let me know when you get to something I write that you actually understand...if only for the novelty.Given that you seem to have conceded the point, this is kinda silly on your part.
Well, that's your business, I suppose. In my country we have the right to them, if not without qualification. That's where the debate is found.We don't have a right to firearms, we have a right to self defense.
Sure. And we actually did ban certain cars here, when they proved inherently unsafe in design. Made people change that, add seat belts to existing ones, etc.And if you banned cars, traffic fatalities would fall.
Criminals love extremely tight gun laws [which they ignore] that keep honest people from owning the best deterrent to being their victims.Meanwhile, countries (unlike mine) that remove the guns I'm objecting to from their stream of commerce have lower rates of gun violence and death...lower murder rates too. :thumb: