Hey Tio HardCock! Two words, 2nd AMENDMENT!!! If you really think you smarter than the founders of this country, you need to reevaluate your own life and realize that your ugly wife and your two children aren't an achievement, they are a law of human nature. Leave it to the professionals. The 2nd Amendment is supported by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE!
@nathangrz you're an idiot lol. are you seriously saying that going from not having a gun to owning one and keeping it beside you in the house wouldn't change your mindset?? if people get a gun theyre gonna think theyre harder than before. i know a little bitch from where i grew up, he always had attitude but was too much of a pussy to do anything, then he got a gun and was always threatening people and in their faces... guns change people
You do know the justices can be impeached and removed from the supreme court. One was impeached for his federalist leaning.
From some of the decision that are be handed down on the second amendment you would think four justices are twisting the constitution to fit their own beliefs and/or taking orders from the president.
@:37 where does Tio get his logic from??? If you don't have a gun you don't think about violence? HUH?? You buy a gun and now you think you are a tough guy? HUH?? The mentality of liberals astounds me! I know where this train of thought comes from however. Taught to them by liberally biased schools and universities!! The only ones who pick up a gun and think about violence are the gang bangers and criminals! The others think about violence being perpetrated on them! Buy a clue atleast!
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” - Adolf Hitler
"Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments’ gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children."
-Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
@fluttervalve I am with ya... I've been shooting since I was nine, and I have never came close to having a gun accident... Learning responsible gun handling and shooting is one of the best things you can do for a child. It teaches them responsibility and instill both honor and courage...
Justices in the Klan robes extend and approve mass killings Nationwide Supremacist Justices in robes and hood approve lynching of NEGROES Supremacist Justices in robes and hood approve water-boarding and predator droning of Muslims in their own countries prolonged indefinite detention secret arrests secret prisons secret assassinations of American citizens corporate corruption Supreme RULE of LAW? or Supreme Rule of LIES? GOD bless the Klan members in the US Supremacist Court AmeriKKKa
Well, well, well Gun right owners were screwed!!! Now the Goverment has the right to take your guns without approval from the states... People are stupid, I mean I really didnt know!!! Who are the judges who voted yes to this, they should be tried for treason... Has anyboody read the constitution???? Where does it say thatt the Government have the right to oversee gun laws??? Welcome to Nazi AmeriKKKa where tyranny rules... William Cooper is turning over in his grave!!!
So, if the Second amendment is intended only to allow the people to keep weapons for military type militia action, doesn't that mean I should be allowed to own militarry grade weapons? Let me know when you idiot leftists pass a law allowing me to own a fully automatic machine gun, instead of a revolver.
Besides, the constitution is clear, rights apply to everyone. The government can't apply rights to only one group, they go for everyone.
@pimpdalyrical "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," don't blame me I didn't write it. Let's make a deal, you can have as many guns as you want without any restriction or licensing as long as the guns were made prior to the signing of the constitution.
"the right of the People to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They wrote that too.
You can keep your deal. I'll stick with the rights I have inherently. The right to own a weapon for self defense which is clear by any logical reading of the constitution.
How bout this deal, you can have your liberal cities immune from the constitutional protections on our rights, but it's all or nothing. Either your city council can ignore your rights, or respect them. Which is it?
@pimpdalyrical lol, how about drugs, abortion, gay marriage? You don't care about rights, you just like the idea of being able to kill other people. You can't have it both ways, the Constitution applies in light of current circumstances or it applies as it was at the time it was written. Let's compromise by agreeing to amend the Constitution. Your Amendment can be the removal of the first clause of the Second Amendment and mine will be to replace the word "people" with "militia".
I don't see anything in the constitution that says you have a right to sell addictive poisons, Kill helpless babies, or redefine our institutions at your leisure.
I simply like the idea that I'm not a sitting duck for the people who want to kill me. I don't want to change the constittution at all! The way it is already backs up my beliefs! Why would I want the first clause removed?
Do you really think it's a coincidence that the first inherent right to be attacked is the one that makes the people capable of protecting the rest of them? What's to stop them from saying the first amendment doesn't apply, if this had succeeded? The legal precedent for eradicating every right we have would be set, and you would have no means of stopping them.
@pimpdalyrical lol, you really are unable to see out of the tunnel you are in. The first right to be attacked was the First Amendment and Dubya shat on the Fourth, FIfth, and Sixth Amendments, but you loved that. You are just a douchebag who wants to kill people. Go shoot some babies you retard.
I have never heard of any juridiction, state or city, blatantly arguing that they have the right to restrict the clearly inherent rights of their people like Chicago did.
We're a year plus into a democrat majority, where's the charges against Bush and Co.? Must be on the to do list.
@pimpdalyrical Why would you think the democrats are different from the republicans? They care about themselves and their wealthy supporters. Just admit that you think it is ok for the government to conduct warrantless searches, detain people indefinitely without bail, and without a trial. I would prefer a libertarian government, if you let me have my rights, then you can have your fucking gun, but don't tell me what I can and can't do while pretending that you care about the Constitution.
I wasn't disagreeing that Bush trampled the constitution, I was pointing out that the left wing party doesn't ACTUALLY give a shit. And they are the one's who just tried to take away the SECOND freedom the founders thought to provide us with.
Seriously, do you not see that this could easily have been the first amendment, or the fifth, or any other?
The second amendment is what protects all the others. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.
@wwickeddogg You make the mistake of thinking all gun rights supporters are the same. I am a huge gay marriage supporter. I was crushed when prop 8 in California took away their rights. Women should definitely have the right to abortion... which they do.
What you don't understand is that a lot of us are for progressing our rights as citizens of this nation. You on the other hand would like for my rights to be taken away. Only criminals win when we implement gun laws.
@lbcdemon I agree with you... Just cause we believe in the Gog given right to defend ourselves doesn't mean we are not social progressives. I see things as you do... Thanks for expressing it...
@u2beandme huh? That's the stupidest thing I read off the internet this week! Maybe you haven't noticed, just MAYBE.... but we have a black president! All the thumbs up you got for your genius comment were all thumbs up their asses... have fun with your lame anti-American youtube protest!
I'll remember you said all this when they have a damn parade to honor the democrat Klansman that just died after a record long senate run.
It took soo long to get a black president because there weren't any black candidates worth voting for. The very belief that we should have a black president just to satisfy some historical debate, instead of their merrit, SHOULD be a disqualifier.
to tell you the TRUTH..both parties are owned by Corporate Klan members
"It took soo long to get a black president because there weren't any black candidates worth voting for"
w0w... where do i begin to answer this bull feces of a comment!
Americans are so smart that they elected the dumbest WHITE man in the country to be the President of America twice, but did not had a Negro "WORTHY" enough to be the President of AmeriKKKa
if George War mongering Bush, Ronald Fucking Reagan and Richard Lying Nixon are worthy enough to become the President of AmeriKKKa, any man / woman is worthy enough to be the President of America
i guess. there weren't any woman worthy enough to be the President of America either in America's history, right?
Name the black candidate that was viable before Obama. (who wasn't qualified, but whatever, he got in on his skin color.)
Let's not forget that being qualified to lead this whole country includes a mindset that ALL people should benefit, not just give shit away to the black community. After all, if it wasnt for the people us blacks keep voting in, we wouldn't be dependent on the government, we would have made it on our own.
So it wasn't because nobody would vote for a qualified guy who was black, they just didn't have one to pick from? I agree. I think it's more evidence that the black community has fallen into a trap of seperatism, while trying to become an influential contributer to the society as a whole. That's a paradox. Why would a white, asian, hispanic, jew, or any other race vote for a guy who only wants to get revenge for the black community?
@pimpdalyrical segregate and isolate a race from enjoying the citizenship rights of the country bestow injustice on a race such that the future generations of that race are destined to FAIL American Negroes seggregated in their own country American Negroes lynched in their own country American Negroes enslaved in their own country American Negroes NOT welcome even in their own country Americans assassinated by their own Government Equal but separate United but segregated United but sexist
American Negroes with every opportunity have their skin color be a non-issue in determining our future, but refusing because of race baiting opportunists.
@u2beandme Crispin Maddox idiot, try looking up some actual black role models instead of these black seperation racists.
Slavery in this country started under british rule, it wasn't until long after the revolution started that people got the idea that a black wasn't a person. There were many MANY willing black influences on the founding of this country. I'm sure Glen Beck is just another evil white boy to you, but he did two whole shows on Black Founding fathers. You should watch it.
i guess AmeriKKKa were too busy lynching Negroes on poplar trees and pulling the corpses of Negroes on back of a pick-up truck to make sure that the Negro/es is dead
GOD bless the US Supremacist Court & the robbed Klan members
"the stupidest thing I read off the internet this week!"
w0w...you are watching the American media....what do you expect....stupidest people and their stupid little propaganda news
News in American media corporations is like Loose Noose.
@u2beandme LOL you are silly. Gun bans and more gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens. Criminals and murderers aren't hurt by a handgun ban in Chicago. Murderers are going to carry a handgun everywhere if it is legal or not.
In the hood, everyone knows that police don't protect people. Why? City doesn't have the money and the resources to do that. Big cities would rather spend their money on useless project and ridiculous welfare. When they run out of money, they start to hire more police to catch more traffic violators. What about the real police work that actually combats crimes?
So much money going into hiring people to cite parking tickets and traffic citations, but never enough to hire police to do police work. Instead, state chooses easier route, to ban a stuff that the constitution says it's okay to have.
A good decision made by our Supreme Court. But it frightens me that 4 Justices dissented. This case should be very clear-cut to any one with a basic understanding of the constitution. Keep in mind that Justice Sotomayer said she was a supporter of gun rights in order to get through confirmation hearings, but when it came down to it she voted against gun rights.
Gun possession is a civil right, therefore arguments about whether gun restrictions reduce or increase violent crime, or whether gun possession guards against tyranny are all beside the point and thus moot… It’s about a person right to choose – say no more…
yup that guys right we all think we're tough guys now because we want to protect ourselves. He,along with anyone else who thinks that shit,can go drown in a pool.
the THOUGHT POLICE will tell people in America: what to say what to think when to think how to think what to buy Patriot Act Naked Body scanners at public places secret prisons secret arrests secret torture secret renditions secret assassination of American citizens by their own Government /watch?v=uGktTws2bK0& secret Governmental proceeding and meetings /watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE less civil liberties....more WARS too much secrecy in the people's Government
I can't believe that there are people who think they can put restriction (in law) to every movement a person makes believing they are creating utopia.
Guns cannot commit crimes nor can it threat people. People who have the intention of committing the crime can use anything as weapons including guns and knifes.
@u2beandme Dude wtf? i consider myself kind of Anti American because of their fast food(star smucks included), gun crazy bigoted religious citizens and Media whoring but... you are like in a whole different dimension..
ease up..with the weapons with the nukes and HAARP they probably never use those... you have no proof that it started an earth quake or can shoot down aliens lol.
The Second amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That was to protect its people, not from criminals on the streets but from a totalitarian government. Any judge that votes against gun rights leads toward that government.
@czwrestler good point cz. I wonder if Communism would have existed in China or Russia if it's people were armed. Also, where do you wrestle? Big fan of the sport and graduated with AA honors from college. Keep up the fight and best to you.
"gonna have these citizens who pick up this mindset like -hey i'm a tough guy now!"
When was it not alright to feel like a tough guy in your own home? I'll tell you what's not alright.... When you live in a neighborhood where you can't feel like a tough guy in your own home!
@RVVV88 I agree, well put.(second last comment... although that last one was pretty funny)
@u2beandme and with gun rights being around so long with so many protests and so many presidents how come ALL of them are not ALWAYS being shot up? because law abiding people dont do the crazy acts your basing your arguement on. I live in Washington a couple years ago a mental person was able to steal a gun and shoot up 8 random people around a town. none of those people even had a chance because they didn't have guns on them. an Armed society is a polite society.
Let's not forget what happen in Iran last summer... If the populace of Iran had our right to keep and bear, the will of the people would be the will of the government not vice versa...
At times, Weapons save lives...
freedom is not free, there is a price to everything...
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
@TheVVV88 Seems unlikely that individual ownership of guns would have allowed them to stand up to the police and the army. In the end a huge massacre could possibly have lead to a new government, but anyone with a brain has to admit that more people would have died and maybe the government response would have been more severe. Keep in mind that one US soldier with a gun can take out thousands of civilians with guns.
@wwickeddogg Respectfully, You say quote, "Seems unlikely that individual ownership of guns would have allowed them to stand up to the police and the army." This is untrue. It would be a logistical nightmare for the police and the army if the populace were armed. Once a popular uprising occurs many elements of that same Army and police would defect and support the uprising, as would many outside elements. Though much blood would be shed, in the end, freedom for the people would result.
@TheVVV88 The success of the revolution does not depend on the number of civilians with guns and there is no way of proving the case in Iran, however, gun ownership is allowed in Iran, so it is possible that the people just can't afford guns or don't want them. Do you have some evidence that the police or military would join the protesters if they had guns or are you just speculating?
Yeah right,, gun ownership is widespread in Iran... when the police were firing on the protesters last summer, those protesters felt it would be more effective to throw rocks... Please be serious... As to my assertion that an effective popular uprising would be supported by internal and external elements. Do you think the French would have supported the American Revolution if we had no chance of success...
@wwickeddogg The weakening of the British Empire was only part of their reasoning for supporting us. It wasn't until Washington secured a few victories that the French decided to join the fight in earnest. Bottom line: the 2nd amendment is a protection against governmental tyranny, exemplified by the fact that every totalitarian regime either strictly controlled or banned civilian firearm possession.Hitler made it illegal for Jews to own firearms. How did it work out for the Jews in Nazi-land
@TheVVV88 Considering that it is totally irrelevant, the fight against the British was carried out by an organized militia which each state still has in the form of a National Guard. I don't think you are seriously proposing that if more Jews had guns in Nazi Germany they could have stopped them because the French army had guns and things didn't go so well for them not to mention the fact that the British were losing the war and the Russians were losing as well.
@wwickeddogg You're missing the point. Firstly, National Guard is a joint reserve component of the United States Army, therefore; they're part of the government. They are not civilian militia. Secondly, if during WWII the Jews did possess weapons, I guarantee 6 million would not have died, Sure, some deaths would have still taken place, but the number would have been greatly reduced. When you care the Nazi's versus the French, British etc. That's governments v governments. Apples & oranges, Dogg
@TheVVV88 I completely disagree, but we can't get anywhere in this argument anyway. How about a compromise. I will fight for the right of every citizen to own any and all guns/weapons as long as the manufacturer and owner are held responsible in the event that a crime is committed with the gun. Because there is no purpose for a gun other than killing people, there should be a heightened responsibility.
@wwickeddogg are you assuming that killing someone is wrong? Killing is an a-moral issue. It's wrong if you do it to rob someone or to cover up a rape or the alike. On the other hand, it's right to kill someone if he intrudes into your home. Companies that make guns don't make those decisions and if it is an individual right, then it is a corporate right as well. Keep in mind, corporations are legally treated as an individual. You can't seperate the law as you have proposed.
@Here2ownU Nope, you don't get to decide what I am saying or what I am assuming. The reason that killing is different has nothing to do with morality. If you kill someone, then kids lose a father, a wife loses a husband, the tax payers have to pay for the kids welfare, and so on. I didn't make any separate law so you should read my comment again. Gun manufacturers and owners should both be liable for all future uses of the gun and if the shooting is justified no problem.
@wwickeddogg A gun is a product. Should car makers be held liable for car chases? Should knife manufactures be held liable for stabbings? What such practices would do is bankrupt manufacturers and thus anti-gun proponents would still get thier desired result without having to answer to the constitution.
@Here2ownU Keep playing stupid. Car manufacturers are held liable when a defect causes an accident, because cars are not supposed to kill people. Knives are regulated by the government just like guns so you fail on that bullshit as well. If you think there are enough shooting deaths to bankrupt gun manufacturers then guns should obviously be completely illegal, think about it.
@wwickeddogg I'm not playing stupid. It's an issue of "product liability". It just doesn't work and it won't curb crime. In countries like England crime has not decreased and the instances of "hot-crimes" have increased. Thiefs will walk right into a home and rob him knowing the owners have gun for home defense. Criminal organizations hold all the power. Mexico is very tough on gun laws. Look at them. Drug lords rule. An armed citizenry maintains order.
@Here2ownU Ok, we are at cross purposes here. You claim that gun ownership prevents crime, but I know that there is no correlation. I claim that holding manufacturers responsible will prevent gun deaths and you believe my position is stupid but you provide no reason. Why don't you propose an alternate solution to my concern and I will provide statistics proving that increased gun ownership has no correlation with a decrease in crime?
@wwickeddogg I don't need a solution to the second amendment. You want to reduce crime? Then government needs to cease welfare which has replaced the father in too many homes. A good father reduces crime more than any gun law. From your photo I would say you are doing your part. I hope we can agree on that.
@Here2ownU Why do you pretend that the 2nd Amendment does not mention well regulated militias? Do you think they wrote it by accident or that they made a mistake? The only thing we have to do is hold manufacturers and owners liable for gun misuse, then no regulation is necessary.
@wwickeddogg A well regulated militia is different than well regulated arms. A militia is state regulated army or an army of the citizenry. To well regulate a militia means basically, to keep it strong. Arms are a necessary part of that. Don't forget the rest of the amendments (it's pretty clear): the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, you go back to your "product liability" arguement. Doesn't work in this case.
@wwickeddogg I agree with your statement that gun ownership does bring a heightened responsibility. As such, children who engage in legal organized shooting sports grow up to be some of the most responsible, civilized and law abiding adults. However, holding gun manufactures responsible for crime is laughable. Should we sue McDonalds or Burger King cause we're a bunch of fat-asses.... Please Dogg!!!
@TheVVV88 No it is not the same thing. When a manufacturer produces a product that is inherently dangerous they are held to a different standard than someone who's product is incidently or accidently dangerous. Car manufacturers have different responsibilities than computer manufacturers. I have a choice whether or not I buy a big mac, but if I get hit by a stray bullet... Besides the onus for safety should be on sellers not the government.
@wwickeddogg If a mans wife leaves him because she met someone on the internet, should he sue the internet provider? Big Macs aren't inherently dangerous? Have you seen preschool kids crossing at a cross-walk lately? It's like there's a fat convention going on. Although I completely disagree with the aguement you make, us pro-gunners should be careful here. This is exactly what Clinton did to the tobacco industry!
@Here2ownU Quote: "Big Macs aren't inherently dangerous? Have you seen preschool kids crossing at a cross-walk lately? It's like there's a fat convention going on" LMAO
@Here2ownU You are just acting like an asshole and if you can't tell the difference between a gun and a big mac, then you should not be allowed to own a gun because you are too stupid.
@wwickeddogg Lol. You sound frustrated. Don't worry, I'm not stupid. Like I said, "It's product liability". If the product fails then you can hold suit against the company; but you are right..guns are meant to kill. So a gun that kills is not "product liability". So the arguement doesn't work with gun manufacturers. Think I'm stupid? I insure businesses for a living. I know liability. Holding gun manufactures accountable because their product worked is stupid.
@Here2ownU You are misunderstanding how liability works. If the gun is used properly and a victim defends himself then there is no liability for anyone. Liability does not exist for beneficial outcomes. McDonald's is not liable for keeping people from starving. Liability exists when there is a negative outcome. The manufacturer would only be liable for accidential shootings or criminal shootings.
@wwickeddogg Again, you want to hold the manufacturer accountable for mis-use and not for a faulty product. This is why I made my comments about the internet or the car. As products they worked, but they were misused. This does not justify a suit. I can't believe you are telling someone that spends 50 hours a week working with business, has a license for, and is required to complete ongoing training in liability that he does not understand it.
@Here2ownU Do you really want to get into a discussion about case law? Besides, what I have said is that guns should be treated differently. There are no other products made specifically to kill people. I am not saying that guns should be treated like cars or computers. I am telling you that guns should be treated differently from other products and that if manufacturers are held liable they will be more careful and they will come up with better methods to keep guns safe.
@wwickeddogg Yes, I do want to discuss case law. It's a part of what I do for a living! You're just making things up as you go along. You really don't understand what you are argueing. You know what you believe, and you are defending it passionatly, but passion for what you belief is not a qualification for knowledge on a subject matter. You're a typical product of todays education, overconfident & unqualified, all emotions, making it up as you go along. You've been pawned. Accept it.
@Here2ownU lol pawned? You claim superior knowledge without presenting any evidence?
You must concede that manufacturers, retailers, and distributors are liable in the event that a product is found to be defective in its design and that there are guns like those by Armatix that can only be fired by a particular individual so any gun that is not designed with such a locking mechanism is defective when it is used to kill babies. You can argue that killing babies is good and proper if you want.
The gun without that device is not defective. You make the choice to purchase the things you buy with the features that are included. If you want the Armatix device, you can buy it. Besides, that's only designed to keep someone from using a gun aginst it's owner. It can still be programmed to be fired only by the person who got it on the black market.
A gun is a hunk of metal. Without it evil people will just use something else. Better ban steak knives too.
@pimpdalyrical Your opinion is noted, yet I challenge you to name one country with no gun control laws. Everyone owns a knife, yet there are more than ten times as many murders committed with guns. The UK has stricter gun control and fewer murders with guns. Why do soldiers carry guns instead of knives? If you want to live in a place where you have to have a gun to protect yourself, why not move to Samalia?
No one is asking for NO gun control laws. I challenge you to show me one instance where restricting the legal ownership of guns have reduced gun crime. Doesn't happen. Washington DC has some of the highest Gun crime rates in the country. 40 people died of gun violence in Chicago the year the ban was passed. I believe it was a town in Switzerland, mandated handgun ownership. Gun violence dropped to Zippo!
@pimpdalyrical But it is not just about gun crime, it is also about accidental deaths of children. How about NYC for a reduction in gun crime. There is less gun crime in NYC than in the other big cities in the country. Obviously it would be ridiculous to credit the gun restrictions in NYC entirely with the low crime rate. I would appreciate some citation regarding the Swiss miracle town.
Teach your kids about guns, and that likelyhood goes down tremendously. And New Yorks over all crime rate has increased. So did the UK's when they started their gun ban in 1997, by as much as 40%. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice and Cambridge in England found that most crime got worse in England than in the United States.
It's common sense, now the badguys don't have anything to fear from their victims.
I was wrong, Switzerland has mandatory gun Training. Just that gave them one of the lowest gun related killing rates in the industrialized world, one for every Quarter MILLION population. The mandate to OWN was in the US state of Georgia!
In 1982, Kennesaw GA mandated head of household firearm ownership.
Between that time and 1996, there were only 3 murders, Two by knife, one by gun. Crime plummeted 74%.
@pimpdalyrical Ok, but what was the murder rate and the population of the town on average for the past ten years. Because 3 murders versus 11 murders is not a big change. I agree that gun training should be mandatory in every country.
Dude, they said it went down 74%. Do the math. Why didn't you have that same spark of curiosity when somebody told you that Europes numbers are soo low? is it because you WANT to believe guns cause violence, or because you did your own homework? I know the answer already.
Nobody is calling for mandatory. You make your choice on how to raise your child. Nothing should be "mandatory." That's why we have the militia clause. It's not to protect ourselves from only foreign enemies!
@pimpdalyrical Well at least I know you are not reading what I write, that's a relief because I was starting think think that you are really stupid, turns out you are an asshole instead.
Mandatory:
Driver's license for driving.
Registering with the selective service.
Paying taxes.
Getting a prescription for drugs.
Like I said before you only care about guns because you fantasize about killing people and you don't care about civil liberties at all.
Driver's licenses are only mandatory if you choose to DRIVE idiot. That's a privelede, not a right.
SS service shouldn't be mandatory
Neither should most taxes far as I'm concerned.
There are thousands of over the counter drugs you can choose to take.
You only hate guns because you know your ideology can't stand up to debate, so you want to enforce it. Sorry, but the founders thought of people like you ,and made sure we can keep you in your place.
@pimpdalyrical Ah, but I don't hate guns, I like guns and I like to go shooting, I just don't want you to own a gun because you can't be trusted to handle a gun properly.
Who the fuck are you to say that? I think the Marine Corps would differ with you on my ability to use a gun.
Look, I have Marine Corps hand to hand training, two black belts, I own and can use three katana, nunchaku, a set of throwing knives, and escrima sticks. My education in chemistry also gave me knowledge on how to make and use all kinds of deadly agents. If I wanted to murder people, I would be on YOUR side, making sure my prey had nothing to fight back with.
@wwickeddogg the inherent characteristics of any product are subjective to say the least. There's no way you hold gun manufacturers responsible for the "stray bullet". You just killed your own argument..The burden for a crime ridden area fails more on the government and society than it does a manufacturer of any product...Actually the onus is on you to keep your butt out of a bad hood, or learn to shoot back... That's it Dogg; you need to get yourself to range and learn to shoot... It's on you!
@TheVVV88 No, I know how to shoot, I like shooting and I think guns are pretty cool, I just don't want idiots to have guns. Since I don't believe the government should control people's lives, I think manufacturers and owners should take responsibility. If you leave your gun where someone can steal it, then that is your fault. If you leave it where a child can get it, then it's your fault. If a manufacturer allows a gun to be sold to a gang banger, then that is their fault.
@wwickeddogg Wow, you are confusing...You have libertarian leanings, yet you imply the government should have control... FYI: Gun safes do work, and yes, I believe in personal responsibility. However, holding manufactures liable for the action of others is not reasonable. Lastly, if your kids are dumb enough to take your guns and shoot each other, then PUT THEM UP FOR ADOPTION they're not worth having; save your guns at all cost.
@TheVVV88 Allowing gang members to have guns is unreasonable. Allowing serial killers to have guns is unreasonable. Allowing people without gun safes to own guns is unreasonable. Do you trust every parent of every kid that your kid might go to see to have a gun? People need to be held responsible if they allow the wrong people to have guns. I don't believe that everyone should have a gun. How about training courses to own a gun? What about annual recertifications?
That's false information. Iran has really strict gun laws, so strict that there is only 5% rate of ownership. Compared to the USA's estimated 200 million privately owned guns which would be about 66% of the population of the USA. The Iranian law reads "The possession of arms, however, requires the granting of permission by the competent authorities." Few people can actually obtain a gun there.
@SporkFire So anyone can own a gun, they just need a permit. I don't have any information about why the people don't own guns and I didn't claim any such knowledge, but I don't see any reason to believe that the general population would have been any more successful in overturning the current regime even if they had guns.
@SporkFire Notice Iran has 5% gun ownership and guess what, they have a dictator that doesn't respect elections and has hijacked the country. Gee, an example of why liberals don't want you to have weapons. Just that example alone should make anyone with an ounce of a brain support the 2nd amendment. If you don't like the constitution, then you can move because there are plenty of others that would love to take your place in the freest country in the world. Go to Iran where they don't have guns.
Hey Tio HardCock! Two words, 2nd AMENDMENT!!! If you really think you smarter than the founders of this country, you need to reevaluate your own life and realize that your ugly wife and your two children aren't an achievement, they are a law of human nature. Leave it to the professionals. The 2nd Amendment is supported by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE!
nathangrz 9 months ago
@nathangrz you're an idiot lol. are you seriously saying that going from not having a gun to owning one and keeping it beside you in the house wouldn't change your mindset?? if people get a gun theyre gonna think theyre harder than before. i know a little bitch from where i grew up, he always had attitude but was too much of a pussy to do anything, then he got a gun and was always threatening people and in their faces... guns change people
SirrSnowman 6 months ago
You do know the justices can be impeached and removed from the supreme court. One was impeached for his federalist leaning.
From some of the decision that are be handed down on the second amendment you would think four justices are twisting the constitution to fit their own beliefs and/or taking orders from the president.
samten10a 9 months ago
@:37 where does Tio get his logic from??? If you don't have a gun you don't think about violence? HUH?? You buy a gun and now you think you are a tough guy? HUH?? The mentality of liberals astounds me! I know where this train of thought comes from however. Taught to them by liberally biased schools and universities!! The only ones who pick up a gun and think about violence are the gang bangers and criminals! The others think about violence being perpetrated on them! Buy a clue atleast!
sw8741 10 months ago
Who cares what these judges say? I'm a man which means god gave me the right not another man or woman honestly. MOLON LABE
cenochs 1 year ago
Damn... This is almost as fun as going to the gun range...
I want to thank all of you, despite which side of the argument, for engaging this lively exchange...
God Bless America
TheVVV88 1 year ago
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” - Adolf Hitler
& Asiablue
:P
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 If your quote is correct, America is doomed. Thank you for making my point.
Asiablue 1 year ago
@Asiablue lol
Did your mom drop you on your head as kid , or, is it a congenital problem??????
which Quote, and which "POINT" do you seek...
:0
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 ; )
Asiablue 1 year ago
@Asiablue :-*
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 lol
Asiablue 1 year ago
"Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments’ gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children."
-Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@fluttervalve I am with ya... I've been shooting since I was nine, and I have never came close to having a gun accident... Learning responsible gun handling and shooting is one of the best things you can do for a child. It teaches them responsibility and instill both honor and courage...
TheVVV88 1 year ago
One who has the GUN always WIN the debate.
Reason and Clarity of THOUGHT though Killing
KILL whomever you please
clear as MUD
Have a nice DEATH
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme
Here, learn about some real men for a change.
watch?v=LD8CSpyEOeM&playnext_from=TL&videos=py3aaoHMVRY&feature=sub
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
supreme Rule of LAW of the Land
or
Supremacist Rule of LIES
GOD bless AmeriKKKa
u2beandme 1 year ago
u2beandme 1 year ago
Rahm Emanuel just walked passed me syaing life is good!!!
dcbama3209 1 year ago
Well, well, well Gun right owners were screwed!!! Now the Goverment has the right to take your guns without approval from the states... People are stupid, I mean I really didnt know!!! Who are the judges who voted yes to this, they should be tried for treason... Has anyboody read the constitution???? Where does it say thatt the Government have the right to oversee gun laws??? Welcome to Nazi AmeriKKKa where tyranny rules... William Cooper is turning over in his grave!!!
dcbama3209 1 year ago
So, if the Second amendment is intended only to allow the people to keep weapons for military type militia action, doesn't that mean I should be allowed to own militarry grade weapons? Let me know when you idiot leftists pass a law allowing me to own a fully automatic machine gun, instead of a revolver.
Besides, the constitution is clear, rights apply to everyone. The government can't apply rights to only one group, they go for everyone.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," don't blame me I didn't write it. Let's make a deal, you can have as many guns as you want without any restriction or licensing as long as the guns were made prior to the signing of the constitution.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
"the right of the People to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They wrote that too.
You can keep your deal. I'll stick with the rights I have inherently. The right to own a weapon for self defense which is clear by any logical reading of the constitution.
How bout this deal, you can have your liberal cities immune from the constitutional protections on our rights, but it's all or nothing. Either your city council can ignore your rights, or respect them. Which is it?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical lol, how about drugs, abortion, gay marriage? You don't care about rights, you just like the idea of being able to kill other people. You can't have it both ways, the Constitution applies in light of current circumstances or it applies as it was at the time it was written. Let's compromise by agreeing to amend the Constitution. Your Amendment can be the removal of the first clause of the Second Amendment and mine will be to replace the word "people" with "militia".
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
I don't see anything in the constitution that says you have a right to sell addictive poisons, Kill helpless babies, or redefine our institutions at your leisure.
I simply like the idea that I'm not a sitting duck for the people who want to kill me. I don't want to change the constittution at all! The way it is already backs up my beliefs! Why would I want the first clause removed?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
Do you really think it's a coincidence that the first inherent right to be attacked is the one that makes the people capable of protecting the rest of them? What's to stop them from saying the first amendment doesn't apply, if this had succeeded? The legal precedent for eradicating every right we have would be set, and you would have no means of stopping them.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical lol, you really are unable to see out of the tunnel you are in. The first right to be attacked was the First Amendment and Dubya shat on the Fourth, FIfth, and Sixth Amendments, but you loved that. You are just a douchebag who wants to kill people. Go shoot some babies you retard.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
I have never heard of any juridiction, state or city, blatantly arguing that they have the right to restrict the clearly inherent rights of their people like Chicago did.
We're a year plus into a democrat majority, where's the charges against Bush and Co.? Must be on the to do list.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Why would you think the democrats are different from the republicans? They care about themselves and their wealthy supporters. Just admit that you think it is ok for the government to conduct warrantless searches, detain people indefinitely without bail, and without a trial. I would prefer a libertarian government, if you let me have my rights, then you can have your fucking gun, but don't tell me what I can and can't do while pretending that you care about the Constitution.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
I wasn't disagreeing that Bush trampled the constitution, I was pointing out that the left wing party doesn't ACTUALLY give a shit. And they are the one's who just tried to take away the SECOND freedom the founders thought to provide us with.
Seriously, do you not see that this could easily have been the first amendment, or the fifth, or any other?
The second amendment is what protects all the others. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg You make the mistake of thinking all gun rights supporters are the same. I am a huge gay marriage supporter. I was crushed when prop 8 in California took away their rights. Women should definitely have the right to abortion... which they do.
What you don't understand is that a lot of us are for progressing our rights as citizens of this nation. You on the other hand would like for my rights to be taken away. Only criminals win when we implement gun laws.
lbcdemon 1 year ago
@lbcdemon I agree with you... Just cause we believe in the Gog given right to defend ourselves doesn't mean we are not social progressives. I see things as you do... Thanks for expressing it...
TheVVV88 1 year ago
License to KILL - approved by the (in)Justices in the Supremacist Court
Americans killing one another
u2beandme 1 year ago
Kill & Be Killed
Mass killing approved by the US Supremacist Court
GOD bless AmeriKKKa
u2beandme 1 year ago 13
@u2beandme you're just an Al-Jazeera watching muslim that 's upset jihad has just been put on hold.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU
about watching Al-Jazeera watching muslim
you have to be a FOOL to believe anything the Christian media in AmeriKKKa feed American people everyday
American Media = propaganda machines for
a. the Government of USA (aka ISRAEL)
b. the Military Industrial Complexes of America
it's Christian Jihad that kills more Americans than Muslim Jihad
no more lynching allowed
now Christians use new tactics like water-boarding and predator drone Muslims in their own lands
GOD bless AmeriKKKa
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme huh? That's the stupidest thing I read off the internet this week! Maybe you haven't noticed, just MAYBE.... but we have a black president! All the thumbs up you got for your genius comment were all thumbs up their asses... have fun with your lame anti-American youtube protest!
kingx989 1 year ago
@kingx989
"but we have a black president"
Why took so long for a Negro to become the President of AmeriKKKa?
why did it took more than 200 years for AmeriKKKa to have a Negro President?
other Negroes who ran for the Presidency were not WHITE enough for the AmeriKKKa, huh?
Oh by the way, Obama is not exactly Black.
i guess slavery, segregation bigotry & discrimination is very convenient in AmeriKKKa
too busy lynching Negroes on poplar trees & pulling the corpses of Negroes
CONTINUED....
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme
I'll remember you said all this when they have a damn parade to honor the democrat Klansman that just died after a record long senate run.
It took soo long to get a black president because there weren't any black candidates worth voting for. The very belief that we should have a black president just to satisfy some historical debate, instead of their merrit, SHOULD be a disqualifier.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical
to tell you the TRUTH..both parties are owned by Corporate Klan members
"It took soo long to get a black president because there weren't any black candidates worth voting for"
w0w... where do i begin to answer this bull feces of a comment!
Americans are so smart that they elected the dumbest WHITE man in the country to be the President of America twice, but did not had a Negro "WORTHY" enough to be the President of AmeriKKKa
If George W Bush is worthy enough to be...
coninued
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme
if George War mongering Bush, Ronald Fucking Reagan and Richard Lying Nixon are worthy enough to become the President of AmeriKKKa, any man / woman is worthy enough to be the President of America
i guess. there weren't any woman worthy enough to be the President of America either in America's history, right?
not WHITE enough
not MAN enough to be the President of AmeriKKKa
USA = under Slavery America
USA = under Sexist America
USA = United but Segregated America
AmeriKKKa
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme
Name the black candidate that was viable before Obama. (who wasn't qualified, but whatever, he got in on his skin color.)
Let's not forget that being qualified to lead this whole country includes a mindset that ALL people should benefit, not just give shit away to the black community. After all, if it wasnt for the people us blacks keep voting in, we wouldn't be dependent on the government, we would have made it on our own.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical
any black candidate before Obama was considered NOT viable by the usual Klan members of their respective parties
whatever the establishment and the clowns in the media says...that is the popular thing and the right thing to do
the establishment sets the agenda, not the people
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme
So it wasn't because nobody would vote for a qualified guy who was black, they just didn't have one to pick from? I agree. I think it's more evidence that the black community has fallen into a trap of seperatism, while trying to become an influential contributer to the society as a whole. That's a paradox. Why would a white, asian, hispanic, jew, or any other race vote for a guy who only wants to get revenge for the black community?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme
American Negroes fought in the Revolution
American Negroes Serving on the Supreme Court
American Negroes winning the presidency
American Negroes with every opportunity have their skin color be a non-issue in determining our future, but refusing because of race baiting opportunists.
Your failures are nobody's fault but yours.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical
American Negroes were obeying the orders of their masters in the Revolution, Supreme Court and the American society every day
NO choice but to obey
American negroes are obedient and subservient as their masters want them to be
if any NEGRO dare to disobey the orders of their master, NEGRO will be lynched on the spot
racist, bigotry, sexist and discriminatory riddled KKK laws are the obstacles for SUCCESS for millions of minorities in USA
illusion of FREEDOM for NEGROES
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme Crispin Maddox idiot, try looking up some actual black role models instead of these black seperation racists.
Slavery in this country started under british rule, it wasn't until long after the revolution started that people got the idea that a black wasn't a person. There were many MANY willing black influences on the founding of this country. I'm sure Glen Beck is just another evil white boy to you, but he did two whole shows on Black Founding fathers. You should watch it.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Well Said... TY
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@kingx989
i guess AmeriKKKa were too busy lynching Negroes on poplar trees and pulling the corpses of Negroes on back of a pick-up truck to make sure that the Negro/es is dead
GOD bless the US Supremacist Court & the robbed Klan members
"the stupidest thing I read off the internet this week!"
w0w...you are watching the American media....what do you expect....stupidest people and their stupid little propaganda news
News in American media corporations is like Loose Noose.
CONTINUED....
u2beandme 1 year ago
@kingx989
Objective of American Media Corporations = Bait the American people with LIES and sensationalist propaganda driven FILTH every fucking day.
i ain't biting it a little bit
more sensationalism in the News; more PROFITS
more LIES, more PROFITS
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme Are you really that stupid? If so, I'm sorry for you and your family.
Room0468 1 year ago
@u2beandme LOL you are silly. Gun bans and more gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens. Criminals and murderers aren't hurt by a handgun ban in Chicago. Murderers are going to carry a handgun everywhere if it is legal or not.
lbcdemon 1 year ago
In the hood, everyone knows that police don't protect people. Why? City doesn't have the money and the resources to do that. Big cities would rather spend their money on useless project and ridiculous welfare. When they run out of money, they start to hire more police to catch more traffic violators. What about the real police work that actually combats crimes?
Forget about it, just blame it on gun owners.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
What about solving poverty and improve economy that would actually decrease crimes?
Nope, the Chicago legislative decided it's easier to blame it on legal gun owners.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
So much money going into hiring people to cite parking tickets and traffic citations, but never enough to hire police to do police work. Instead, state chooses easier route, to ban a stuff that the constitution says it's okay to have.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
A good decision made by our Supreme Court. But it frightens me that 4 Justices dissented. This case should be very clear-cut to any one with a basic understanding of the constitution. Keep in mind that Justice Sotomayer said she was a supporter of gun rights in order to get through confirmation hearings, but when it came down to it she voted against gun rights.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
Good day for the 2nd amendment. If your not from the USA, or do not hold citizenship, STFU.
Englishbobwv 1 year ago
Gun possession is a civil right, therefore arguments about whether gun restrictions reduce or increase violent crime, or whether gun possession guards against tyranny are all beside the point and thus moot… It’s about a person right to choose – say no more…
TheVVV88 1 year ago
If it's OK to target Americans for assassination, what's left?
/watch?v=DKA7V1WZ4xQ&
iknewitalready 1 year ago
yup that guys right we all think we're tough guys now because we want to protect ourselves. He,along with anyone else who thinks that shit,can go drown in a pool.
livefreeordie2008 1 year ago
@livefreeordie2008 right on my brother!!!!
You say it eloquently... "Live_Free or _Die"...
Great name and motto!!!!!!
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 thank you
livefreeordie2008 1 year ago
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme I figured Hold a Thick Bible right in front of your chest and Pray, Pray. Really hard when the Bullets Fly ??? Maybe you'll get Lucky !!!
MrTommyboy9 1 year ago
@MrTommyboy9
shove a thick Bible up your ass really hard sideways....
then Pray, Pray when Bullets Fly. Maybe your ass won't get shot
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme ouch!!! Damn, you're mean, or way kinky... You anti-gun pacifist are f**king violent...
~shakes his head in fright~
:P
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88
kill and be killed
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme I Love It !!!! Lol !!!
MrTommyboy9 1 year ago
Censor the TRUTH
Censor the THOUGHTS
Liberty to KILL and WARS
illusion of FREEDOM & false sense of SECURITY
watch out for the THOUGHT POLICE and the Military DRAFT
Freedom, Security & Prosperity for CORPORATIONS of America;
TYRANNY for ordinary people
u2beandme 1 year ago
I can't believe that there are people who think they can put restriction (in law) to every movement a person makes believing they are creating utopia.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
Guns don't kill people, people do.
Similarly, guns don't threat people, people do.
Guns cannot commit crimes nor can it threat people. People who have the intention of committing the crime can use anything as weapons including guns and knifes.
Civsuccess2 1 year ago
@Civsuccess2
Thank you for bringing some clarity and reason to this debate...
;)
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88
"Thank you for bringing some clarity and reason to this debate"
One who has the GUN always WIN the debate.
there is no reason and clarity. kill whoever you please
"reason" and "clarity" for killing.
have a nice death
clear as mud
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme Ya know... It's OK to take you meds on a REGULAR basis... In your case, it should be mandatory...
:))))
TheVVV88 1 year ago
kill the "undesirables" in America by GUNS
annihilate undesirables overseas, by ATOMIC weapons, AGENT ORANGE, Predator drones and HAARP
/watch?v=2Rlqjxst6xU
/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme Dude wtf? i consider myself kind of Anti American because of their fast food(star smucks included), gun crazy bigoted religious citizens and Media whoring but... you are like in a whole different dimension..
ease up..with the weapons with the nukes and HAARP they probably never use those... you have no proof that it started an earth quake or can shoot down aliens lol.
GravDiga 1 year ago
@GravDiga
Dude ... when did the TRUTH become "Anti-American"?
criticism or Dissent NOT allowed in the US of America
Criticism and Dissent is UNPATRIOTIC in America
LIES are praised and honored
HAARP: Holes in Heaven
/watch?v=Y-VMfzO94M0
/watch?v=8RPc6Lp8iw4
u2beandme 1 year ago
yet another win for the descendants of Confederate Generals in the South
lynch Negroes & shoot disobedient "ILLEGALS"
u2beandme 1 year ago
The Second amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That was to protect its people, not from criminals on the streets but from a totalitarian government. Any judge that votes against gun rights leads toward that government.
czwrestler 1 year ago 2
@czwrestler good point cz. I wonder if Communism would have existed in China or Russia if it's people were armed. Also, where do you wrestle? Big fan of the sport and graduated with AA honors from college. Keep up the fight and best to you.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
George Carlin about the wisdom behind America's "Civil War"
/watch?v=SINbIcHxNGg
u2beandme 1 year ago
Its up to US to change the "PERCEPTION" of guns.
how???
use your brain, and stop waiting for someone else to "GIVE YOU THE SOLUTIONS".
macks3123 1 year ago
"gonna have these citizens who pick up this mindset like -hey i'm a tough guy now!"
When was it not alright to feel like a tough guy in your own home? I'll tell you what's not alright.... When you live in a neighborhood where you can't feel like a tough guy in your own home!
@RVVV88 I agree, well put.(second last comment... although that last one was pretty funny)
DrDoe1 1 year ago 4
Americans love their guns so much that they wont blink twice about assassinating American Presidents--with their beloved GUNS
Abraham Lincoln (16th President of USA)
John F. Kennedy (35th President of USA)
Robert F. Kennedy
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Malcolm X
Long live the KILLING
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme Would you feel better if they were pushed out of windows?????
:)))))
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@u2beandme Can you add a few of the Future KILLINGS to Your List Please ????
MrTommyboy9 1 year ago
@u2beandme and with gun rights being around so long with so many protests and so many presidents how come ALL of them are not ALWAYS being shot up? because law abiding people dont do the crazy acts your basing your arguement on. I live in Washington a couple years ago a mental person was able to steal a gun and shoot up 8 random people around a town. none of those people even had a chance because they didn't have guns on them. an Armed society is a polite society.
resinated666 1 year ago
@resinated666
"and with gun rights being around so long with so many protests and so many president how come ALL of them are not ALWAYS being shot up?"
that is because American people are too generous of a people...killing people is like fun and games for AmeriKKKans
we like war; we are war like people
/watch?v=zYTxuW2vmzk
/watch?v=to3Ymw8L6ZI
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme The shooters were government patsies. You can include Reagan and John Lennon.
Kitswain59 1 year ago
The begining of take back America, next will be november, after that remove Obama.
TheImpeacher 1 year ago
that black guy is just afraid his brothers who break into houses for a living are going to get shot!!
resinated666 1 year ago
bout time!
Steadno 1 year ago
Liberalism is a goddamn mental disorder.
5-4 is very bad. Trampling on the constitution right you good libs?
TheTravisChannel 1 year ago
Christian Fundamentalist rejoice
Christian Fundamentalist galore in the CIA and the AmeriKKKa
Christians in America are incapable of LYING, STEALING and KILLING people on a massive scale.
iknewitalready 1 year ago
@iknewitalready why would you be afraid of a "christain fundamentalist" if you were armed too?
resinated666 1 year ago
@resinated666
Kill and be Killed
iknewitalready 1 year ago
ahh.... the LIES, GUNS and perpetual WARS, Christians in AmeriKKKa wages around the world
GOD bless AmeriKKKa
u2beandme 1 year ago
WAR fuckers hugging their GUNS at home
WAR & KILL
WAR orgy
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme You need to clutch your Bible and KEEP PRAYING !!!
MrTommyboy9 1 year ago
@MrTommyboy9
Praying = Guaranteed to FAIL
the GOD myth
u2beandme 1 year ago
Let's not forget what happen in Iran last summer... If the populace of Iran had our right to keep and bear, the will of the people would be the will of the government not vice versa...
At times, Weapons save lives...
freedom is not free, there is a price to everything...
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 Seems unlikely that individual ownership of guns would have allowed them to stand up to the police and the army. In the end a huge massacre could possibly have lead to a new government, but anyone with a brain has to admit that more people would have died and maybe the government response would have been more severe. Keep in mind that one US soldier with a gun can take out thousands of civilians with guns.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg Respectfully, You say quote, "Seems unlikely that individual ownership of guns would have allowed them to stand up to the police and the army." This is untrue. It would be a logistical nightmare for the police and the army if the populace were armed. Once a popular uprising occurs many elements of that same Army and police would defect and support the uprising, as would many outside elements. Though much blood would be shed, in the end, freedom for the people would result.
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 The success of the revolution does not depend on the number of civilians with guns and there is no way of proving the case in Iran, however, gun ownership is allowed in Iran, so it is possible that the people just can't afford guns or don't want them. Do you have some evidence that the police or military would join the protesters if they had guns or are you just speculating?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
Yeah right,, gun ownership is widespread in Iran... when the police were firing on the protesters last summer, those protesters felt it would be more effective to throw rocks... Please be serious... As to my assertion that an effective popular uprising would be supported by internal and external elements. Do you think the French would have supported the American Revolution if we had no chance of success...
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 Maybe you can't read, but my comment had nothing to do with widespread gun ownership in Iran.
Of course the French supported the American Revolution regardless as to the chances for success because the Revolution weakened the British Empire.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg The weakening of the British Empire was only part of their reasoning for supporting us. It wasn't until Washington secured a few victories that the French decided to join the fight in earnest. Bottom line: the 2nd amendment is a protection against governmental tyranny, exemplified by the fact that every totalitarian regime either strictly controlled or banned civilian firearm possession.Hitler made it illegal for Jews to own firearms. How did it work out for the Jews in Nazi-land
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 Considering that it is totally irrelevant, the fight against the British was carried out by an organized militia which each state still has in the form of a National Guard. I don't think you are seriously proposing that if more Jews had guns in Nazi Germany they could have stopped them because the French army had guns and things didn't go so well for them not to mention the fact that the British were losing the war and the Russians were losing as well.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg You're missing the point. Firstly, National Guard is a joint reserve component of the United States Army, therefore; they're part of the government. They are not civilian militia. Secondly, if during WWII the Jews did possess weapons, I guarantee 6 million would not have died, Sure, some deaths would have still taken place, but the number would have been greatly reduced. When you care the Nazi's versus the French, British etc. That's governments v governments. Apples & oranges, Dogg
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 I completely disagree, but we can't get anywhere in this argument anyway. How about a compromise. I will fight for the right of every citizen to own any and all guns/weapons as long as the manufacturer and owner are held responsible in the event that a crime is committed with the gun. Because there is no purpose for a gun other than killing people, there should be a heightened responsibility.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg are you assuming that killing someone is wrong? Killing is an a-moral issue. It's wrong if you do it to rob someone or to cover up a rape or the alike. On the other hand, it's right to kill someone if he intrudes into your home. Companies that make guns don't make those decisions and if it is an individual right, then it is a corporate right as well. Keep in mind, corporations are legally treated as an individual. You can't seperate the law as you have proposed.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU Nope, you don't get to decide what I am saying or what I am assuming. The reason that killing is different has nothing to do with morality. If you kill someone, then kids lose a father, a wife loses a husband, the tax payers have to pay for the kids welfare, and so on. I didn't make any separate law so you should read my comment again. Gun manufacturers and owners should both be liable for all future uses of the gun and if the shooting is justified no problem.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg A gun is a product. Should car makers be held liable for car chases? Should knife manufactures be held liable for stabbings? What such practices would do is bankrupt manufacturers and thus anti-gun proponents would still get thier desired result without having to answer to the constitution.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU Keep playing stupid. Car manufacturers are held liable when a defect causes an accident, because cars are not supposed to kill people. Knives are regulated by the government just like guns so you fail on that bullshit as well. If you think there are enough shooting deaths to bankrupt gun manufacturers then guns should obviously be completely illegal, think about it.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg I'm not playing stupid. It's an issue of "product liability". It just doesn't work and it won't curb crime. In countries like England crime has not decreased and the instances of "hot-crimes" have increased. Thiefs will walk right into a home and rob him knowing the owners have gun for home defense. Criminal organizations hold all the power. Mexico is very tough on gun laws. Look at them. Drug lords rule. An armed citizenry maintains order.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU Ok, we are at cross purposes here. You claim that gun ownership prevents crime, but I know that there is no correlation. I claim that holding manufacturers responsible will prevent gun deaths and you believe my position is stupid but you provide no reason. Why don't you propose an alternate solution to my concern and I will provide statistics proving that increased gun ownership has no correlation with a decrease in crime?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg I don't need a solution to the second amendment. You want to reduce crime? Then government needs to cease welfare which has replaced the father in too many homes. A good father reduces crime more than any gun law. From your photo I would say you are doing your part. I hope we can agree on that.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU Why do you pretend that the 2nd Amendment does not mention well regulated militias? Do you think they wrote it by accident or that they made a mistake? The only thing we have to do is hold manufacturers and owners liable for gun misuse, then no regulation is necessary.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg A well regulated militia is different than well regulated arms. A militia is state regulated army or an army of the citizenry. To well regulate a militia means basically, to keep it strong. Arms are a necessary part of that. Don't forget the rest of the amendments (it's pretty clear): the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, you go back to your "product liability" arguement. Doesn't work in this case.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU Well said...
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg I agree with your statement that gun ownership does bring a heightened responsibility. As such, children who engage in legal organized shooting sports grow up to be some of the most responsible, civilized and law abiding adults. However, holding gun manufactures responsible for crime is laughable. Should we sue McDonalds or Burger King cause we're a bunch of fat-asses.... Please Dogg!!!
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 No it is not the same thing. When a manufacturer produces a product that is inherently dangerous they are held to a different standard than someone who's product is incidently or accidently dangerous. Car manufacturers have different responsibilities than computer manufacturers. I have a choice whether or not I buy a big mac, but if I get hit by a stray bullet... Besides the onus for safety should be on sellers not the government.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg If a mans wife leaves him because she met someone on the internet, should he sue the internet provider? Big Macs aren't inherently dangerous? Have you seen preschool kids crossing at a cross-walk lately? It's like there's a fat convention going on. Although I completely disagree with the aguement you make, us pro-gunners should be careful here. This is exactly what Clinton did to the tobacco industry!
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU Quote: "Big Macs aren't inherently dangerous? Have you seen preschool kids crossing at a cross-walk lately? It's like there's a fat convention going on" LMAO
:))))))))
That's truly funny - kudos...
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@Here2ownU You are just acting like an asshole and if you can't tell the difference between a gun and a big mac, then you should not be allowed to own a gun because you are too stupid.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg Lol. You sound frustrated. Don't worry, I'm not stupid. Like I said, "It's product liability". If the product fails then you can hold suit against the company; but you are right..guns are meant to kill. So a gun that kills is not "product liability". So the arguement doesn't work with gun manufacturers. Think I'm stupid? I insure businesses for a living. I know liability. Holding gun manufactures accountable because their product worked is stupid.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU You are misunderstanding how liability works. If the gun is used properly and a victim defends himself then there is no liability for anyone. Liability does not exist for beneficial outcomes. McDonald's is not liable for keeping people from starving. Liability exists when there is a negative outcome. The manufacturer would only be liable for accidential shootings or criminal shootings.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg Again, you want to hold the manufacturer accountable for mis-use and not for a faulty product. This is why I made my comments about the internet or the car. As products they worked, but they were misused. This does not justify a suit. I can't believe you are telling someone that spends 50 hours a week working with business, has a license for, and is required to complete ongoing training in liability that he does not understand it.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU Do you really want to get into a discussion about case law? Besides, what I have said is that guns should be treated differently. There are no other products made specifically to kill people. I am not saying that guns should be treated like cars or computers. I am telling you that guns should be treated differently from other products and that if manufacturers are held liable they will be more careful and they will come up with better methods to keep guns safe.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg Yes, I do want to discuss case law. It's a part of what I do for a living! You're just making things up as you go along. You really don't understand what you are argueing. You know what you believe, and you are defending it passionatly, but passion for what you belief is not a qualification for knowledge on a subject matter. You're a typical product of todays education, overconfident & unqualified, all emotions, making it up as you go along. You've been pawned. Accept it.
Here2ownU 1 year ago
@Here2ownU lol pawned? You claim superior knowledge without presenting any evidence?
You must concede that manufacturers, retailers, and distributors are liable in the event that a product is found to be defective in its design and that there are guns like those by Armatix that can only be fired by a particular individual so any gun that is not designed with such a locking mechanism is defective when it is used to kill babies. You can argue that killing babies is good and proper if you want.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
The gun without that device is not defective. You make the choice to purchase the things you buy with the features that are included. If you want the Armatix device, you can buy it. Besides, that's only designed to keep someone from using a gun aginst it's owner. It can still be programmed to be fired only by the person who got it on the black market.
A gun is a hunk of metal. Without it evil people will just use something else. Better ban steak knives too.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Your opinion is noted, yet I challenge you to name one country with no gun control laws. Everyone owns a knife, yet there are more than ten times as many murders committed with guns. The UK has stricter gun control and fewer murders with guns. Why do soldiers carry guns instead of knives? If you want to live in a place where you have to have a gun to protect yourself, why not move to Samalia?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
No one is asking for NO gun control laws. I challenge you to show me one instance where restricting the legal ownership of guns have reduced gun crime. Doesn't happen. Washington DC has some of the highest Gun crime rates in the country. 40 people died of gun violence in Chicago the year the ban was passed. I believe it was a town in Switzerland, mandated handgun ownership. Gun violence dropped to Zippo!
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical But it is not just about gun crime, it is also about accidental deaths of children. How about NYC for a reduction in gun crime. There is less gun crime in NYC than in the other big cities in the country. Obviously it would be ridiculous to credit the gun restrictions in NYC entirely with the low crime rate. I would appreciate some citation regarding the Swiss miracle town.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
Teach your kids about guns, and that likelyhood goes down tremendously. And New Yorks over all crime rate has increased. So did the UK's when they started their gun ban in 1997, by as much as 40%. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice and Cambridge in England found that most crime got worse in England than in the United States.
It's common sense, now the badguys don't have anything to fear from their victims.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
I was wrong, Switzerland has mandatory gun Training. Just that gave them one of the lowest gun related killing rates in the industrialized world, one for every Quarter MILLION population. The mandate to OWN was in the US state of Georgia!
In 1982, Kennesaw GA mandated head of household firearm ownership.
Between that time and 1996, there were only 3 murders, Two by knife, one by gun. Crime plummeted 74%.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Ok, but what was the murder rate and the population of the town on average for the past ten years. Because 3 murders versus 11 murders is not a big change. I agree that gun training should be mandatory in every country.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
Dude, they said it went down 74%. Do the math. Why didn't you have that same spark of curiosity when somebody told you that Europes numbers are soo low? is it because you WANT to believe guns cause violence, or because you did your own homework? I know the answer already.
Nobody is calling for mandatory. You make your choice on how to raise your child. Nothing should be "mandatory." That's why we have the militia clause. It's not to protect ourselves from only foreign enemies!
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Well at least I know you are not reading what I write, that's a relief because I was starting think think that you are really stupid, turns out you are an asshole instead.
Mandatory:
Driver's license for driving.
Registering with the selective service.
Paying taxes.
Getting a prescription for drugs.
Like I said before you only care about guns because you fantasize about killing people and you don't care about civil liberties at all.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
You're a fucking retard.
Driver's licenses are only mandatory if you choose to DRIVE idiot. That's a privelede, not a right.
SS service shouldn't be mandatory
Neither should most taxes far as I'm concerned.
There are thousands of over the counter drugs you can choose to take.
You only hate guns because you know your ideology can't stand up to debate, so you want to enforce it. Sorry, but the founders thought of people like you ,and made sure we can keep you in your place.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Ah, but I don't hate guns, I like guns and I like to go shooting, I just don't want you to own a gun because you can't be trusted to handle a gun properly.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
Who the fuck are you to say that? I think the Marine Corps would differ with you on my ability to use a gun.
Look, I have Marine Corps hand to hand training, two black belts, I own and can use three katana, nunchaku, a set of throwing knives, and escrima sticks. My education in chemistry also gave me knowledge on how to make and use all kinds of deadly agents. If I wanted to murder people, I would be on YOUR side, making sure my prey had nothing to fight back with.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg the inherent characteristics of any product are subjective to say the least. There's no way you hold gun manufacturers responsible for the "stray bullet". You just killed your own argument..The burden for a crime ridden area fails more on the government and society than it does a manufacturer of any product...Actually the onus is on you to keep your butt out of a bad hood, or learn to shoot back... That's it Dogg; you need to get yourself to range and learn to shoot... It's on you!
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 No, I know how to shoot, I like shooting and I think guns are pretty cool, I just don't want idiots to have guns. Since I don't believe the government should control people's lives, I think manufacturers and owners should take responsibility. If you leave your gun where someone can steal it, then that is your fault. If you leave it where a child can get it, then it's your fault. If a manufacturer allows a gun to be sold to a gang banger, then that is their fault.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg Wow, you are confusing...You have libertarian leanings, yet you imply the government should have control... FYI: Gun safes do work, and yes, I believe in personal responsibility. However, holding manufactures liable for the action of others is not reasonable. Lastly, if your kids are dumb enough to take your guns and shoot each other, then PUT THEM UP FOR ADOPTION they're not worth having; save your guns at all cost.
;)
TheVVV88 1 year ago
@TheVVV88 Allowing gang members to have guns is unreasonable. Allowing serial killers to have guns is unreasonable. Allowing people without gun safes to own guns is unreasonable. Do you trust every parent of every kid that your kid might go to see to have a gun? People need to be held responsible if they allow the wrong people to have guns. I don't believe that everyone should have a gun. How about training courses to own a gun? What about annual recertifications?
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg The French love to surrender.
Englishbobwv 1 year ago
@Englishbobwv I'd be careful with the soccer jokes right now, England couldn't even score a goal when the ball was in the net.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@wwickeddogg
That's false information. Iran has really strict gun laws, so strict that there is only 5% rate of ownership. Compared to the USA's estimated 200 million privately owned guns which would be about 66% of the population of the USA. The Iranian law reads "The possession of arms, however, requires the granting of permission by the competent authorities." Few people can actually obtain a gun there.
SporkFire 1 year ago
@SporkFire So anyone can own a gun, they just need a permit. I don't have any information about why the people don't own guns and I didn't claim any such knowledge, but I don't see any reason to believe that the general population would have been any more successful in overturning the current regime even if they had guns.
wwickeddogg 1 year ago
@SporkFire Notice Iran has 5% gun ownership and guess what, they have a dictator that doesn't respect elections and has hijacked the country. Gee, an example of why liberals don't want you to have weapons. Just that example alone should make anyone with an ounce of a brain support the 2nd amendment. If you don't like the constitution, then you can move because there are plenty of others that would love to take your place in the freest country in the world. Go to Iran where they don't have guns.
MotionFrequency 1 year ago
@MotionFrequency
I support the 2nd Amendment. I was just correcting wwickeddogg information on Iran's gun control laws.
SporkFire 1 year ago
Preserving the Liberty and Dignity of all mankind by massacring them by our GUNS
illusion of FREEDOM; false sense of SECURITY
"From My Cold Dead Hands" - Charleston Heston
/watch?v=TQtrdFYDzCU&
u2beandme 1 year ago
GUN hugging at home
WAR orgy abroad
u2beandme 1 year ago
Gun control works! just ask hitler, stalin, tung!
more americans are killed by peanuts than by terrorists... WAR ON PEANUTS!
RevolutionNewz 1 year ago
a good law to kill off all the "undesirables" and "illegals" (illegal humans) in the society.
ONE race society
GOD bless AmeriKKKa
u2beandme 1 year ago
@u2beandme -------eat a dick---------
Chillyman010 1 year ago
@Chillyman010
eat shit and drink blood
blood suckers
u2beandme 1 year ago
@Chillyman010 Ditto on that Comment !!!
MrTommyboy9 1 year ago
@u2beandme They tried that in Europe. The problem was Europeans couldn't stay in Europe. : )
olzt100 1 year ago
@olzt100
Ancesto