Indiana shopping mall shooter shot dead by armed 'good Samaritan,' police say

Read the post.

 

LOL, you did absolutely no research at all you just made that up. there is no other nation with a 2A that just gave their rights up, those countries had weak gun laws in the first place.

 

I did. When I said children aren't doing massacres in The United States, you responded with "yet". So, obviously you meant children in The United States and you predict they will.

 

post deleted

 

Japan and Germany, England, France. Most of the world's civilized nations were very heavily armed after WWII and aren't now.

 

Many on the left have called for a complete ban. See Golem's opinion, he's the paid left wing shill on this site. Even left wing politicians, when asked their wish list on gun control state that UBC , red flag laws, age limits would be "a good start".
What the hell I want to know is:
Where do you STOP?
What are the limits of the 2A, in your eyes?
I dont wanna hear about "reasonable restrictions", thats a buzz phrase.
What is sacrosanct? What line will.you not cross, if given full authority? Where does your feelings stop and my rights begin?

 

I DID!!! Oh, Dear God! How ridiculous. It was my quotes from the article that the poster and I were discussing.

That was EXACTLY what I was referring to when I said you should stop jumping in to discussions when you don't know when they are about.

I'm going to have to put your posts on hold for the moment. I have to catch up on SERIOUS posters before I start responding to nonsense like yours.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tan-police-say.601843/page-11#post-1073597323

 

No, just a tyrannical government.
Hmmmmm...

 

I'm sorry, did those nations have a 2A?

 

Which, if you had read my post, you would have understood is EXACTLY what I'm counting on: that they don't care. If you had read it you wouldn't have made such an idiotic comment.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

 

great so you admit your idea wont work on criminals.. so your point was pointless as I suspected

 

I'm not talking about a gun regulation I'm talking about a repeal of the 2A and the banning of guns, that would kick off a civil war.

What you want to happen would require the 2A being repealed.

 

Japan banned weapons 500 years ago, plus her suicide rate is higher than The United States.

Germany banned guns and 12,000,000 people got murdered.

England is an island, for one. Her sex crime rate is higher than ever. The murder rate is increasing, all ng with the firearms black market.

France's total crime rate is 48% higher than The United States.

If you call that success, I'll pass.

 

Which is why most gun advocates are against them

I have come to the conclusion most gun advocates don't give a flying Fandango about crime. Their real goal is that they want to USE their weapons. They fantasize about killing somebody.

 

Why should I be interested in the document you cite? If there is something in it you want to discuss then copy and paste it I don't waste my time chasing blind links trying to discover what the other persons point might be.

Your statement was that we have passed amendments before to take away a fundamental right. I asked you which one and I you post you want to run away from the conversation. I noted that you do this quite often, post a statement and then say "goodbye I've had enough". Can I expect more of the same in the future?

 

Obviously, Leftists don't give a fandango about crime, because they support the defund the police, decacerate platform of the Democrats.

 

Are you sure you're American, Golem? Not very patriotic...

 

You just made that up. Less than .001% of gun owners shoot anyone.

You just like to fantasize that they're bloodthirsty because it bolsters your weak narrative, another emotionally based decision. Since you don't like a good guy with a gun do you fantasize about criminals shooting legal gun owners?

 

The quotes you posted do not in any way demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of the bans you seek.
You can disagree, but it only means you choose to be wrong.

That is, you're going to tuck tail and run.
As expected.

Thanks for playing!!



^^^^
This has been proven false.

 

No you made a false statement, I'm not playing your goalpost move game. I've got a suppressor for my hog hunting rifle with a night vision. These suckers will ruin your ground in a hurry so it's a necessity to get as many of them SOBs as possible. That being said, it's still loud, I linked the one I and most I know get. It's not a simple nor quick process and you better be squeaky, or the ATF will deny you. You have to submit fingerprints to the database, and they run those, as well. If you've been approved before it might be quicker, but they still run a background and update the database.

 

And continues to sail today. God bless our constitution

 

You're the one who compared it to getting a passport, not me. Getting a passport is a walk on the beach.

So what if you have to submit fingerprints? I did that for my carry license + other occasions. Big freaking deal, but of course the "mission impossible" folks will never stop complaining unless things are given to them on a silver platter.

 

And they have predictably experienced far more violent crime, including gun crime, after disarming their people.

 

Crime in the UK soared over the first 6 years after the 1996 Dunblane Gun Ban.

"England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations."
The Daily Telegraph, England has worst crime rate in world, By David Bamber, 12/1/2002.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414855/England-has-worst-crime-rate-in-world.html

Proving the obvious: More Guns Less Crime

 

One more time, Bluesguy.

I read and post here in order to learn. Once a conversation starts down a path I've been before, there's nothing to be gained in following it. As far as 'rights' go, the definition is a tad slippery. Drinking alcoholic beverages was a 'right' until the prohibition amendment. Now, that might not be considered 'fundamental', but that can lead to the 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' discussion.

We've strayed quite a distance from the topic of this thread. I do thank you for the 'chat'.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n hydrated.