Bad Day For D.C. Gun Controllers

[RobDownSouth]

Cracker thinks everyone other than us fits his definition of "reasonable."



∴ Any time we see a potential abuse, it is tin foil hat because of how reasonable everyone else is and nobody he knows would use every trick in the book to end gun ownership; they only exist in our imagination. Of course, it goes without mention that reasonable people need protection from us, so knowing who "us" are is a reasonable idea.

Didn't you just post this exact same rant in another thread?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I grew up with guns.

I'm still pretty good with a shotgun.

My grandfather taught me to hunt.

He has a passel full of rifles and shotguns. Dunno about pistols.

He wasn't a gun crazy. He'd have thought many of you and much of America is. *

You can accommodate firearms in regular society without accommodating crazies.

Just as I said.



http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1060591

* What do you want to bet he also means himself...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Well, duh. It means the Second Amendment means what it says. Maybe this will give honest citizens more of a fighting chance against the criminal element, who didn't care one way or another about the law.

Criminals are a Democrat constituency.

 

[sufisaint]

We all know we cannot have law abiding armed citizens near our capitol...that is not what the second amendment is about. It is about you being allowed to have a deer hunting rifle.

 

[BotanyBoy]

We all know we cannot have law abiding armed citizens near our capitol...that is not what the second amendment is about. It is about you being allowed to have a deer hunting rifle.

Care to point out the "deer hunting rifle" clause?

 

[Sean Renaud]

They already do that. You omitted the part about criminals being armed already because they didn't care about the law.

Yeah, except criminals do care about the law. They aren't cartoon characters. Those are limited to the the Republican party.

We all know we cannot have law abiding armed citizens near our capitol...that is not what the second amendment is about. It is about you being allowed to have a deer hunting rifle.

Tis funny but I think common sense tells us we really want to limit the number of armed people around our capital. Not that it matters at this point, we all have little pew pew guns and the president has a Helicopter on the grounds. I doubt that all the gangsters in DC would have a prayer of getting to him before he got out.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

They already do that. You omitted the part about criminals being armed already because they didn't care about the law.

Of course, in DC they could be arrested just for being armed in public, until this decision.

 

[Sean]

Let's not ban gangs of criminals from the District, let's ban law abiding citizens and their constitution as well.

You hate the constitution.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Y'know, armed Americans are not really much threat to tyrannical government. The BLM might be scared of 'em (or, rather, of the fallout from shooting things out with them, a shootout government forces would undoubtedly win), but obviously the NSA ain't.

 

[1sickbastard]

Let's not ban gangs of criminals from the District, let's ban law abiding citizens and their constitution as well.

Oh yes, because we all know how well "gangs of criminals" adhere to legal bans.
Certainly let's not do anything to diminish the underlying causes of crime.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Of course, in DC they could be arrested just for being armed in public, until this decision.

Many criminals were armed even before this decision. They are criminals. Therefore, they break the law and are not concerned with the lesser violation of being armed in public.

Let's put it this way: Two robbers park their car across the street from a convenience store. They then cross the street in the middle of the block, rob the store at gun-point and hurry back to their car. They have just committed armed robbery and jaywalking. Do you think they are concerned about the latter?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh yes, because we all know how well "gangs of criminals" adhere to legal bans.
Certainly let's not do anything to diminish the underlying causes of crime.

The main underlying cause of crime against property and most crimes against persons is that some people want to make a lot of money without working very much for it. There can be other reasons but that is the main one.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The main underlying cause of crime against property and most crimes against persons is that some people want to make a lot of money without working very much for it. There can be other reasons but that is the main one.

Or if you look at it realistically it's people who have very little in the way of actual opportunity for a wide variety of reasons most often that we as a society have in some way failed them. But we don't like taking personal responsibility for what happens so it's easier to just think of them as bad people.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Back to the point of the thread, there's a lot of butt hurt in today's liberaldom.

Which is why you're in a liberal space whining and crying out your man-cunt every day about liberaldom.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Back to the point of the thread, there's a lot of butt hurt in today's liberaldom.

Not really, I don't think anybody expects we'll ever win a battle against guns. I just wish you lot had the honesty to admit you don't give a shit how many people die and move along.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Disgustipated]

It's not a liberal site, it's just where you come to be paddles every day.

The site owners disagree with most of your beliefs, dummy.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

It's not a liberal site, it's just where you come to be paddles every day.

Laurel and Manu are liberals, guy.

This site supports many aspects of being that true conservatives — not your old sun-bleached pattern ass form of conservative — would loathe to enable with their presence.

You're here in this liberal space because you got nowhere else to go. Own it.

http://collegetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/3691545-6518341303-laugh.gif

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not as long as we have adherence to the Constitution. We know you'd love it if only the police and military had guns. You love being oppressed because being free is simply too much responsibility.

Right because we actually follow the Constitution when it's less than convienent. I'm a lot less worried about a country where only the police have guns than I am one where the government can disappear me to an island and never charge me with a crime. But you approve of that. I'm much less worried about a country where only the cops have guns than one where the president might decide, largely on a whim to murder me for my associations.

So yeah, I don't mind being "oppressed" but lets be fair, you love it and approve of Gitmo, a far, far greater sin against the Consitution than gun rights. Which as we've been over dozens of times aren't exclusively protected. I don't see you defending Iran's right to nukes or even Pars Hilton's so can we stop pretending this shit is sacred and instead deal in reality?

 

[unregistered]