-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 608)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/civ/ - Civics
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 476 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 18/04/09(Mon)01:54 No. 608 ID: 79b576
608

File 152323166831.jpg - (92.72KB , 600x343 , P1370539-900x601_1.jpg )

I support the second amendment rights of all US citizens, and this is somehow unpopular.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/09(Mon)12:45 No. 609 ID: 09f698

>>608
No reasonable person wants to take it away from you or expects you to give it up without going down in a blaze of redundancy.

We should be following the word of the amendment more strictly. All gun owners should be members of their state militia, appropriately trained, and able to serve as the heroes the NRA seems to think they can be. The problem is that we have a lot of lazy gun ownership--incompetent owners having accidents, letting guns slip into the black market, letting children get their hands on weapons, people with a history of violence and mental illness legally purchasing them at undocumented roadshow sales.

Have your right to bear arms, and do it better.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/10(Tue)10:18 No. 611 ID: de56af

If you support arming the mentally unfit and criminal elements then, yes, indeed, you are very unpopular.

If you are like the majority of gun owners and the overwhelming majority of US citizens, you would support reasonable background checks before all forms of gun purchases. If you do not, you are guaranteed to be unpopular, as you are part of the lunatic fringe.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/11(Wed)05:22 No. 615 ID: 242a70

>>609
>We should be following the word of the amendment more strictly. All gun owners should be members of their state militia, appropriately trained, and able to serve as the heroes the NRA seems to think they can be.
Well, it has gone before the Supreme Court several times and been ruled that it covers individuals as it specifically states that the right of the people will not be infringed upon.
>The problem is that we have a lot of lazy gun ownership
You'd have to define a lot. If statistics are any reflection of reality than those problems occur with a very small percentage of gun owners. Also, that's not taking into account the lives saved by gun owners.
>>611
>If you support arming the mentally unfit and criminal elements
That's illegal already.
>background checks
If the amendment's original intent was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, it seems a bit backwards to have to submit to being investigated beforehand by that same government.
Also, it doesn't prevent mentally ill with no prior record from owning a firearm.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/12(Thu)08:10 No. 616 ID: de56af

>>615
>Well, it has gone before the Supreme Court several times and been ruled that it covers individuals as it specifically states that the right of the people will not be infringed upon.
Actually if you follow the case law you'll see that until Scalia came on board and warped its intent it was viewed quite differently. Much like with the first amendment there used to be limits.

>If statistics are any reflection of reality than those problems occur with a very small percentage of gun owners.
Well, considering that less than 10% of the population owns guns and less than 10% of those owners own more than a couple weapons, just how small of a population are we talking about? If its such an infinitesimally small number why does not a week pass without someone shooting themselves, a family member, a neighbor, or an innocent bystander by accident?

>That's illegal already.
Then why are they able to buy firearms from private citizens, gun shows, and other locations without undergoing a background check? If it's illegal, why not make reasonable common sense regulations that won't stop anyone who's actually entitled to purchasing a firearm? If you're going to crap your pants and piss yourself after a couple days wait then why shouldn't the seller be responsible for selling a weapon to someone who shouldn't own one? If they're not going to perform a background check then they should be responsible for vetting the seller themselves.

>If the amendment's original intent was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government
Except that's only been the definition since extreme right wing elements took over the NRA and started pushing their extremist agenda.

Previously citizens could simply sign up for a militia, who would perform the necessary background checks and decide who gets to join the militia. The states organize their own militias and put a check on the federal government.

Sorry buddy, but you bought into their revisionist lies hook, line, and sinker. All because your grandfather wanted to own slaves like his grandfather did.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/12(Thu)20:05 No. 617 ID: 4bc1e9

>>616
>Actually if you follow the case law you'll see that until Scalia came on board and warped its intent it was viewed quite differently.

I do follow the case law and that's untrue.
The precedent was set as the right of the individual since Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

>Well, considering that less than 10% of the population owns guns

Where are you getting that percentage?
Gallup polls shows 42% of American households contain at least one gun.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

>If its such an infinitesimally small number why does not a week pass without someone shooting themselves, a family member, a neighbor, or an innocent bystander by accident?

Accidents happen and firearms are no exception. Accidental death is the 4th most common cause of death in the US.

>Then why are they able to buy firearms from private citizens, gun shows, and other locations without undergoing a background check?

That's not illegal.

>why not make reasonable common sense regulations that won't stop anyone who's actually entitled to purchasing a firearm?

That depends on your definition of reasonable and common sense. Also, the federal government cannot oversee those regulations as that is in direct violation of the amendment. Also, there's no national database of criminals/lunatics.

>why shouldn't the seller be responsible for selling a weapon to someone who shouldn't own one?
Though I agree with you, that's also illegal.

>Except that's only been the definition since extreme right wing elements took over the NRA and started pushing their extremist agenda.

>Previously citizens could simply sign up for a militia, who would perform the necessary background checks and decide who gets to join the militia. The states organize their own militias and put a check on the federal government.

None of that's true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois
and again there's no federal database of criminals and no shared state felon database either.

>Sorry buddy, but you bought into their revisionist lies hook, line, and sinker.

By what you're saying, it sounds as though you're the one who has been believing lies.

>All because your grandfather wanted to own slaves like his grandfather did.

I'm only third generation American and and a northerner.
You don't have to insinuate my family or I are somehow bad just because we disagree.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/13(Fri)06:10 No. 619 ID: 07bbae

>>617
>I do follow the case law and that's untrue.
No, you don't, you simply read what others wrote and it resonated with what you had already decided was the truth and you continue to parrot what you read as the truth.

In reality it wasn't decided until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller.

>Gallup polls shows 42% of American households contain at least one gun.
Seeing as there are federal laws against funding studies about gun ownership and gun use, we may just never know a real number. Not that it'd matter, you'd just scream "fake news" and ignore it because your preconceived decision is challenged.

However your number seems abnormally large and was likely cherrypicked by the ammosexual site you're copying & pasting your responses from.

Just last year Pew found that less than 1 in 3 owned a single firearm:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

Even your cherrypicked finds that 67% of gun owners believe additional regulations should be made. You are clearly one of the frightened children in the body of adults minority.

Here's something interesting, less than 25% of the citizens own nearly 100% of the firearms. If true that would mean 1 in 4 are pissing their pants at the thought of not having their special boom boom to masturbate with each night.


>That's not illegal.
Only because the NRA and like minded stooges like yourself fought tooth and nail for it to be legal so that criminals and maniacs, like yourself, can continue to purchase firearms. The NRA wants to do it because the only people they care about provide kickbacks and "donations" - gun manufacturers.

>Accidental death is the 4th most common cause of death in the US.
Yeah, you're a ultraconservative gun owner alright. Unless an action results in death then it's not a problem. The people who are maimed, disabled, permanently injured, or just plain wounded by careless gun owners don't count.

Perhaps its because you know you're a careless gun owner.

>Also, the federal government cannot oversee those regulations as that is in direct violation of the amendment.
The problem is that the definition of the amendment was changed in 2008 by Scalia. For over 200 years personal ownership of firearms was a heavily regulated and controlled industry and despite countless challenges they remained a heavily regulated and controlled industry.

>You don't have to insinuate my family or I are somehow bad just because we disagree.
But you are. You are arguing for an amendment which was written to allow states to organize militias to capture escaped slaves. It has nothing to do with personal ownership of firearms and very little to do with the thing that keeps you up at night because you've spent years feeding yourself a steady diet of lies and bullshit about tyranny and similar nonsense.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/13(Fri)09:17 No. 620 ID: a8b914

>>619
>No, you don't, you simply read what others wrote and it resonated with what you had already decided was the truth and you continue to parrot what you read as the truth.

That's quite an assumption to make about someone based on absolutely no information.
You wouldn't be trying to delegitimize my argument by defaming my character, would you?

>In reality it wasn't decided until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller.

Well, I was responding to a prior comment debating the second amendment was in reference to an individual's right or the right of a militia.

If this is still the same topic, then you're arguing with Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need."

District of Columbia v. Heller guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

For instance, the decision negated the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and a law ordering that firearms must be locked up or remain disassembled at home.

>Seeing as there are federal laws against funding studies about gun ownership and gun use, we may just never know a real number.

There are tons of studies on gun ownership and gun use. Why do you need the Center for Disease Control to do the study in order to believe the results?

>Not that it'd matter, you'd just scream "fake news" and ignore it because your preconceived decision is challenged.

That's the second time you've made an assumption about me with no information to back it up, and it's beginning to sound a lot like you're purposefully characterizing me as illogical.
I certainly hope this is not an attempt to avoid logically debating me.

>However your number seems abnormally large and was likely cherrypicked by the ammosexual site you're copying & pasting your responses from.
>Just last year Pew found that less than 1 in 3 owned a single firearm:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

I guess, Pew has been cherry picking the same "ammosexual" site.
"About four-in-ten adults (42%) report that there is a gun in their household, with three-in-ten saying they personally own a gun and 11% saying they don’t own a gun but someone else in their household does"

I'm not sure if it's relevant if someone owns the gun or lives in the house and uses it.

If someone broke into your house with the intention of murdering you, would you not use a gun owned by your spouse or roommate to defend yourself because you didn't buy it yourself?

>Even your cherrypicked finds that 67% of gun owners believe additional regulations should be made.

Are you saying because a majority of people believe in additional regulations, I should automatically agree with them?

>You are clearly one of the frightened children in the body of adults minority.

A third assumption?

>less than 25% of the citizens own nearly 100% of the firearms. If true that would mean 1 in 4 are pissing their pants

Are you saying because a minority of people have an affinity for guns, I should disagree with their right to do so?

>stooges like yourself
>maniacs, like yourself

I'm starting to think that you're intolerant of the opinions of others.

>you're a ultraconservative gun owner alright.
>you're a careless gun owner.

I have never owned a gun. There were no guns present in my home growing up. Not a single member of my family has ever owned a gun or expressed any desire to own a gun.

>For over 200 years personal ownership of firearms was a heavily regulated and controlled industry and despite countless challenges they remained a heavily regulated and controlled industry.

Not at all. This was only the case in certain states and municipalities with laws prohibiting the manufacture, sales, and/or possession of firearms.

>You are arguing for an amendment which was written to allow states to organize militias to capture escaped slaves.

Do you have any proof of that?
I believe the general narrative.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
"James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government."

>steady diet of lies and bullshit about tyranny

Here's where we truly disagree.

It's not bullshit. You are a tyrant.

You have no tolerance for civil discourse and no respect for the thoughts of others.
You present your opinions as facts and make up lies to back them up. If anybody questions you or disagrees with you, you berate them and defame them with more lies.

If you or any group of people like you ever made it into positions of power, you would force your will on all and terrorize anyone didn't go along with your agenda.

You and people like you are what the founding fathers always feared the federal government they created would become.

Congratulations. You've convinced me to buy a gun. I hope I never have to defend myself and family from the likes of you.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)07:25 No. 621 ID: 07bbae

>>620
You wouldn't happen to be someone who claims the 2nd amendment is absolute and can't be questioned or modified in any way, would you?

Because last time I checked 1 came before 2 and the 1st has limits.

Maybe you should go masturbate to your firearm collection and meet up with the other 20% of the nation who masturbate to their firearm collection and have yourselves a good old fashioned circle jerk.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)07:37 No. 622 ID: dbad57

>>615
>the lives saved by gun owners
This is a myth purpoted by the NRA. Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed. You're already typing some sort of refutation--stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths about the glory of gun ownership that only serve to increase profits for the gun manufacturers who pay the gun lobbyists who take them golfing, throw galas for them in vegas, and get their kids into exclusive schools.

And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void. Go ahead, keep on thinking that more armed people means more safe people. At least you're doing something about our overpopulation problem.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)08:10 No. 623 ID: 093f34

>>621
>Because last time I checked 1 came before 2 and the 1st has limits.

So because the first amendment has limits, the second should too?
The second amendment does have limits, but not because of that dumb reasoning.

>Maybe you should go masturbate to your firearm collection

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read my whole post, so I'll say it again.
I DO NOT OWN ANY FIREARMS

>>622
>stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths

"Stop arguing with me because I'm right about everything! No, I don't have any proof or logic or ability to make a point! Just know that I know what's best for everyone!"
Mhm

>And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void.

I don't doubt that you have the best intentions, but you have no right to tell people how to live their lives just because you don't agree.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)12:30 No. 624 ID: 07bbae

>>623
>I don't know how IDs work
That was someone else fed up with your bullshit, genius.

If more weapons makes everyone safer, why is there still war? If more firearms make everyone safer why do armies, the most well-armed group, still go to war?

>So because the first amendment has limits, the second should too?
You've got it genius. No single constitutional right is absolute to the detriment of all other constitutional rights.

That's what the 2nd was up until the late 70s when the wingnuts took over the NRA and started pushing an absolutist agenda that got them little more than scorn from supreme court justices in the 70s. Who the fuck knew they'd actually get one of their very own wingnuts appointed.

>I DO NOT OWN ANY FIREARMS
I don't believe you. There's no way someone can spew your kind of psychotic paranoid delusions without having a death woobie to hold onto each night while you drift off to sleep to thoughts of all the children he can massacre with it.

Eat a bullet.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)13:27 No. 625 ID: 71faa7

>>624
>That was someone else fed up with your bullshit, genius.

If you're referring to my comments about whoever was saying "just stop it" I figured that was the collective thought of the anti gun side of this debate as I don't see any rational thought coming from anyone opposing my viewpoint in this thread.

>If more weapons makes everyone safer, why is there still war? If more firearms make everyone safer why do armies, the most well-armed group, still go to war?

I never at any point said more guns makes people safer. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Wars happened before the invention of guns.

>You've got it genius. No single constitutional right is absolute to the detriment of all other constitutional rights.

It's not absolute. Seeing as automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are banned, I'd say it's pretty restricted.

>I don't believe you. There's no way someone can spew your kind of psychotic paranoid delusions without having a death woobie to hold onto each night while you drift off to sleep to thoughts of all the children he can massacre with it.

Believe it or not. I don't really care. Sounds like you're the one suffering paranoid delusions that everyone who opposes your views is some crazy conservative gun nut on a first name basis with NRA leaders.

>Eat a bullet.
Yeah, you sound like a real pacifist.
Glad you care so much about the safety of others.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)16:09 No. 626 ID: c62b88

>>623
Actually I specified the very logic you can look up proof to confirm if you really need to, but you will never do anything other than parrot the propoganda your casually genocidal overlords decree.

Simple version: you think like gun profiteers; their only motivation profit; outcome more death only.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)18:52 No. 627 ID: 9fbf2d

>>626
>Actually I specified the very logic you can look up proof to confirm if you really need to,

I'll look it up. Let's have it.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)10:48 No. 628 ID: 07bbae

>>625
>Yeah, you sound like a real pacifist.
Who said I was a pacifist?

You're the one hyperventilating at the thought of not having your death sticks.

Maybe its time you get some scrotal implants, what you've got down there obviously isn't enough to get you through the day.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)13:13 No. 629 ID: ece0bf

>>628
>Who said I was a pacifist?

So, why do you care if people own guns again?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)17:27 No. 630 ID: 265579

>>627
You're asking about this? >>622
There it is. Right there. Can you even read?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)23:05 No. 631 ID: 2cf414

>>630
Oh, right. So much logic, how could I have missed it?

>This is a myth purpoted by the NRA.
Any proof of that statement?

>Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed.

How could you possibly have any stats for that?

For instance, the mass shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas was mortally wounded by an armed bystander.
How could you possibly calculate how many more people he would have killed if he hadn't been shot?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/18(Wed)05:35 No. 632 ID: 49549c

>>631
You said you'd look it up, so look it up.

You'd never believe anything I told you anyway.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)03:28 No. 633 ID: 5a1576

>>632
I'd believe what you told me, if you could back it up with evidence.

The only semi credible article I'm seeing for either side of the debate is in Scientific American and it reads like an oped piece for a high school newspaper.

So, do us all a favor and provide a source for your statements.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)06:26 No. 634 ID: c38524

>>633
I'm not your high-school social studies teacher. If you want an education you're going to have to go and get one.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)14:33 No. 636 ID: 11b5b1

>>634
>education
Well, I believe social studies ends in junior high and is also based on factual evidence.

You're making a claim based on "common sense", but when asked to prove it, you have no evidence.

If you want to blindly follow an ideology, that's fine. But, don't try and bring me down to your level.
All of my posts have been objective, rational, and based on sources that I have provided.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)03:34 No. 637 ID: 7b20f8

>>636
You're already blindly following an ideology.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)05:40 No. 638 ID: 7152a8

>>637
>blindly
People have had the right to bear arms since the US was founded and that right was an integral part of this country's victory in it's war for independence.

It is a right of US citizens designated in the constitution.

I don't own any guns nor do I clamor that everyone should own a gun.

I believe people should be free to defend themselves or not depending on their personal preferences.

I believe in liberty.

My thoughts are based on the founding principles of the US.

You want to deprive people of their rights and sacrifice the validity of our constitution because you think you know better based on no verifiable facts.

You're blind.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)09:33 No. 639 ID: a3370a
639

File 152446882470.webm - (412.32KB , 720x1280 , Rockwell.webm )

>>638
Tanks, nuclear weapons, weaponized chemical warfare, all these and more are off limits for personal ownership. If there are limits on personal ownership, and you're not clamoring for unlimited personal ownership, then all you're really arguing over is where the line should be drawn. Like a woman who gives it up when you treat them to dinner at a five star restaurant, all we're arguing over here is price, at the end of the day you're still a whore.

Cloaking yourself in the flag for bullshit ideological reasons isn't going to win you any converts here, lunatic.

What you need to do is find yourself a bunch of like minded folks, build a large compound for you all to live in, have sex with their children, and continue amassing weapons and selling them indiscriminately. When confronted over your illegal activities be sure to set your compound on fire rather than submit to a legal warrant for your arrest.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)19:43 No. 641 ID: 3ac2f3

>>639
>Tanks, nuclear weapons, weaponized chemical warfare, all these and more are off limits for personal ownership

I think it'd be a stretch to consider those to be covered under the second amendment, but I'm pretty sure you can own a tank provided it's not against local/state laws and you have the appropriate permits, though it certainly wouldn't be street legal.

>If there are limits on personal ownership, and you're not clamoring for unlimited personal ownership, then all you're really arguing over is where the line should be drawn.

Aside from that being based on an exaggerated interpretation of the second amendment, I didn't state that.
I stated:
>I don't own any guns nor do I clamor that everyone should own a gun.
Meaning if you don't feel that you want/need a gun, don't buy one.

You seem to have a real problem with people thinking for themselves and being free to make their own decisions.
Do you need someone to tell you how to think and what to do because you're stupid or because you can't stand taking any responsibility for your own thoughts and actions?

>you're still a whore.
>lunatic
>What you need to do

Such a sad little tyrant.
It must be so frustrating for you that people in the US are allowed to think for themselves and make their own choices.

Lucky for everyone, one of the founding principles of the US was to prevent the majority of people from tyrannizing the minority.
So, I guess you'll just have to settle for being an internet bully instead of a full fledged nazi.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)00:42 No. 642 ID: a870df

>>641
>You seem to have a real problem with people thinking for themselves and being free to make their own decisions.
You seem to think yelling fire in a crowded theatre is perfectly defensible behavior. After all, the person yelling is thinking for themselves and making their own decisions.

I suggest you seek therapy for your paranoid delusions. It'll be cheaper than firearms and actually provide tangible benefits to you as a person, unlike firearms.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)01:22 No. 643 ID: fc3ef2

>>642
>You seem to think yelling fire in a crowded theatre is perfectly defensible behavior. After all, the person yelling is thinking for themselves and making their own decisions.

Good analogy. Is that your argument against independent thought and action?

Pretty ironic, considering you're part of a crowd stampeding over people's rights in your panic after believing a falsehood.

Independent thoughts and choices are dangerous for everyone when we have people like you around who can't think for themselves.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)02:39 No. 645 ID: 0c6af2

>>643
>a crowd stampeding over people's rights
Today in OP's mind: other myths purported by the NRA.

You've really got to drop this "I don't have or want any guns" rhetoric. Do you honestly think you can be so god damn ammosexual and use that bit to get people who actually do not wish to own guns on your side? This is like hearing the cookie monster say he has no need for chocolate chips, then giving you a recipie for chocolate chunk cookies.

>>641
>you can own a tank
Actually, yeah. Arnold Schwarzenegger owns one as a private citizen but of course it has been rendered incapable of firing and can only be driven on his estate. His is the only privately owned tank I know of that is actually mobile; some veteran's associations have immobilized ones on display.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)03:26 No. 646 ID: f0cdfe

>>645
>Do you honestly think you can be so god damn ammosexual and use that bit to get people who actually do not wish to own guns on your side?

No, I've been repeatedly accused of being something that I'm not and I apparently have to repeat myself.

>His is the only privately owned tank I know of that is actually mobile; some veteran's associations have immobilized ones on display.

What you don't know could fill volumes.
https://tanktownusa.com


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)04:22 No. 647 ID: 95d4f9

>>646
>tanktownusa
I can think of a lot more satisfying ways to spend $150 for 10 minutes.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)04:32 No. 648 ID: f0cdfe

>>647
Yeah, but this way you won't wake up with AIDS.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)04:48 No. 650 ID: 078e45

>>648
The NRA is political AIDS.

It's highly contagious, mostly spread through ammosexuality and political ambition, undermines our immunity to propaganda, and will eventually allow a minor rash of gun violence to kill our entire society.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)05:20 No. 651 ID: f0cdfe

>>650
Total number of homicides with a firearm this year: 3,555

Total US population: 326,625,791

Total number of facts provided to substantiate any of the antigun rhetoric or evil nra influence itt: 0

I think we're good.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)07:04 No. 652 ID: 6a38d6

>>651
>antigun rhetoric
Where's the anti-gun rhetoric in this thread?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)08:49 No. 653 ID: a3370a
653

File 152455255262.gif - (0.98MB , 675x810 , KSS.gif )

>>652
Imagine you're a man. Imagine your gonads were removed by your parents when you were just a child.

Now read the thread. You'll find the things he finds objectionable due to his complete lack of anything approaching manhood.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)08:50 No. 654 ID: a3370a

>>643
>Pretty ironic, considering you're part of a crowd stampeding over people's rights in your panic after believing a falsehood.
Yeah, keep believing in crisis actors and similar patently ridiculous fantasies designed to keep you perpetually afraid and stupid.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)09:42 No. 656 ID: 32a48d
656

File 152455574553.jpg - (49.39KB , 514x514 , crisisactors.jpg )

>>652
Well, it went from only ten percent of the population owns guns and accidentally shoot people all the time to ammosexuals to anybody that owns a gun doesn't have any balls to guns don't protect anybody so no one should have them to every firearm owner is some nra stooge to I'm some nra stooge because I think people should be able to buy guns if they want.

>>654
K


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)01:50 No. 657 ID: a870df
657

File 152461384111.jpg - (65.60KB , 648x610 , Sheeple.jpg )

>>656
You're an NRA stooge because you think that guns are going to protect you from government takeover, a fantasy concocted by NRA stooges that has yet to happen (because, if it did happen, your little pew pew toys wouldn't stop it), while simultaneously discounting that the current state of virtually unrestricted access to firearms has increased the instance and severity of mass shootings, very real acts that occur in increasingly frequent and greater numbers, leading to actual deaths that are occurring on a regular basis.

This is how we know you prefer fantasy to reality. And when your fantasies are pointed out, you retreat into increasingly dogmatic ideological arguments about how you deserve the right to murder your fellow citizens in cold blood after the neighbors dog starts talking to you because 2nd amendment is an eternal god-given right and has no limits.

Quite frankly, I find the delusional mental state you're in disturbing.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)04:16 No. 658 ID: 2db709

>>657
What fantasies? What has been pointed out?

All I've gotten for my efforts to discuss this logically is a bunch of unsubstantiated stupid ass shit CNN told you fifteen seconds ago and you've adopted as your personal mantra.

Not to mention, instead of rising to the challenge of discussing the issue with any semblance of objectivity or civility, you've just been steady talking shit the whole time like you're winning a nonexistent argument.

There is no debate happening here.
It's just me stating my beliefs based on historical references and facts, and you trying to demonize my motives so you can avoid discussing the topic altogether while feeling superior.

Finally, I'm the third person that I've personally witnessed you call delusional for disagreeing with you when the fact of the matter is you've been huffing your own fucking farts for so long you've become fucking retarded.

Now back that spew up with some evidence or take a fucking walk, asshole.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)04:41 No. 659 ID: 073bd0

>>657
And for the last fucking time, I don't have any pew pew toys because I don't need any.

If you were ever fucking dunb enough to say something like this >>653 to my fucking face, you'd be picking your teeth out of your shit for a fucking week.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)07:30 No. 660 ID: 37f869
660

File 152463424037.png - (709.10KB , 960x640 , Mmmyeah.png )

I support reasonable common sense limitations on the second amendment, similar to how there are limitations on all amendments, and this is somehow unpopular with an overwhelming minority of citizens and the gun manufacturers they stooge for.

Also, if you tried to hit me, you'd find yourself face down with a broken arm so fast you'd wonder what the fuck just happened. Stick to raping your cousins, they're the only ones fat and stupid enough for you to stand a chance of winning in a fight.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)07:32 No. 661 ID: 37f869
661

File 152463432686.jpg - (38.93KB , 1280x720 , Maxxy.jpg )

>>656
>still thinks he's arguing with a single person
>the IDs mean nothingk


>>
Anonymous 18/04/26(Thu)02:35 No. 662 ID: 7a09e3

>>660
>reasonable, common sense regulations
Like what?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/26(Thu)21:52 No. 663 ID: a870df

>>658
>What fantasies?
...
>you think that guns are going to protect you from government takeover, a fantasy concocted by NRA stooges
You can't seriously be this slow.

Then again, you have stated you think your little toy guns are going to stop M1A2s and F22s so I guess that question has been answered.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)00:46 No. 664 ID: e85e92

>Then again, you have stated you think your little toy guns are going to stop M1A2s and F22s so I guess that question has been answered.

Well, I actually never stated that, so...


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)07:59 No. 665 ID: 6df502

>>656
>guns don't protect anybody so no one should have them
Only you have made this statement.

Go ahead, look over the whole thread. The only post in which this assertion is made is yours. There is no leftist anti-gun cukold conspiracy, there never was, and there never will be. No one is stupid enough to think gun owners could be made to turn over their weapons in the United States; even the most communist left wing transgendered snowflake pony princesses understand this.

Regulation is not disarmament. Making it more difficult for people with a history of criminal acts or mental illness to obtain deadly weapons is not a threat to mentally fit and law-abiding owners of guns. Requiring owners to register their weapons and ammunition is not a violation of their privacy or the first step toward tyranny; it just reduces the likelyhood that those particular weapons and ammunition will be used in a violent crime or traded on the black market.

You're probably warming up some stale argument about how regulation is meaningless because criminals will still get guns on the black market--shove it up your ass. Lack of regulation is the reason we have such a black market; solving that problem would take a lot more than just a few new laws--you don't even want to think about the kind of work it would take. Doing nothing about it won't make it go away either. Mentally fit and law-abiding citizens will always be able to acquire guns in the United States; that will never change. The black market will survive for as long as there is a supply of unregistered weapons to trade; greater regulation will reduce that supply, and therefore reduce the black market.

No one has argued against guns. We have been arguing against your stupid NRA propaganda talking points.

>>658
>evidence
Why should I bother looking up sources for you to refute? Stop pretending you are capable of debate. You don't even have your own thoughts; everything you argue comes straight out of the NRA handbook.

>There is no debate happening here.
At last, something we can agree on. The reason it feels like no one is listening to you, is that no one is listening to you. This isn't Georgia, this isn't Texas; we aren't fat uneducated rednecks. This is 7chan, we're monsters, and we don't respond well to programming.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)10:07 No. 666 ID: 37f869
666

File 15248164236.png - (163.40KB , 550x689 , WhatIf.png )

>>665
Actually even in Texas the tide is turning against NRA stooges. A few weeks ago a survey found that the majority of gun owners in the state were in favor of common sense gun reform. This isn't a new thing, the tide has been turning away from lunatic fringe elements like OP for years now. Texas is behind the curve, but its still following the same trend as the rest of the country. The difference is that outside of Texas and like minded places the tide is severely against the fear-based rhetoric that OP keeps trotting out with minimal prompting.

I think the primary fear that OP and people like OP have is that if mentally incompetent people are prevented from having access to firearms that it means people like him will be prevented from having access to firearms. This is the fundamental fear of the average NRA stooge.

They severely beat their spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. and have a restraining order taken out against them, which in any competent regulatory framework would prevent them from purchasing new firearms and having their access to existing firearms removed until such time as the restraining order is lifted. Not feeling the cold caress of a barrel against their cheek as they fantasize about revenge, not being able to feel a sense of security from the knowledge that they are the arbiters of life and death for everyone they encounter on a daily basis.

The thought that those and more could be a thing of the past puts fear in the blackness that replaced their heart all those years ago.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)16:18 No. 668 ID: aa0e26

>>665
Right there >>622
>Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed

My argument is what the fuck do you mean by "reasonable"? What the fuck do you mean by common sense? What do you mean by more than a few new laws?
Is there a national database of anybody who has ever had a crazy thought? Is there a national database of people before that are about to have a crazy thought?
Is there a database of state felons that's going to be updated and maintained for all fifty states?
Are you going to pay to background check everyone against these nonexistent databases or for the data or anything?

Make a legitimate argument already.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)16:24 No. 669 ID: 7cc7b3

>>667
>Right there
This is clearly an argument against NRA propaganda, not guns, gun ownership, or the second amendment.

Is this what you interpret as an "anti-gun" statement? I'm so sorry it ripped your tiny little anus to have to read some common fucking sense. This isn't wiki-fucking-pedia; believe it or not it is possible for people to know things that were not told to them by other people. You want to know what my source is? Everything is my source; living in the real world is my source; being well read and informed is my source. If you want to have an argument, you need to have some knowledge of your own to base it on. Go get an education; thank me later.

>Make a legitimate argument already.
You don't want to hear a legitimate argument, you want to refute anything anyone has to say against your gun-lobbyist overlords. You cannot argue; all you are capable of is refuting anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you. The only reason you feel like your point of view has any validity is that you are incapable of accepting defeat. This is the miracle of the internet: no one ever has to lose an argument, you can just keep going on and on forever because its just text in posts with no consequences.

>>666
>if mentally incompetent people are prevented from having access to firearms it means people like him will be prevented from having access to firearms
Devilpost == Truthpost


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)19:40 No. 670 ID: 88466f

>>669
>This is clearly an argument against NRA propaganda, not guns, gun ownership, or the second amendment.

By saying nobody should be armed but authorities and criminals based on data you don't have? Oh right... common sense...

>Everything is my source; living in the real world is my source; being well read and informed is my source. If you want to have an argument, you need to have some knowledge of your own to base it on. Go get an education; thank me later.

So, you have no source? Your source is that you think you're smarter than everyone else based on no evidence whatsoever.

>You don't want to hear a legitimate argument, you want to refute anything anyone has to say against your gun-lobbyist overlords. You cannot argue; all you are capable of is refuting anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you. The only reason you feel like your point of view has any validity is that you are incapable of accepting defeat.

Yeah, don't tell me what I want. I've been saying I want a fact based argument this whole time, you can't provide any information, so you keep trying to demonize me and digress into some NRA bullshit.

It's sad you think you're educated.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)05:42 No. 671 ID: 817551

>>670
>fact based argument
"Alternative" facts don't count. I gave you facts, you didn't like them. I made legitimate arguments, you didn't respond to them. You aren't here for a debate; you're just looking for an excuse to parrot the NRA's propoganda. Go be an idiot somewhere else.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)08:15 No. 673 ID: 37f869
673

File 152489614744.jpg - (52.47KB , 1125x467 , Truth Stings.jpg )

>>671
>Go get an education; thank me later.
He clearly lives in an armed compound in Montana where the only people inside are related to him by blood and their collective ignorance of the outside world.

If he tried to leave they'd shoot him.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)12:13 No. 674 ID: 37f869
674

File 152491043447.jpg - (149.94KB , 1440x907 , Concealed-Guns.jpg )

>>671
>"Alternative" facts don't count.
Personally, I find it rather suspicious that he continually trots out "facts" that exclusively swing far over to the NRA side of the fence. For example, the poll he cited to come up with his 42% is the outlier of polls on the subject, yet he clings to it like its the only possible truth. Then he disparages the very media that gave him this one and only possible truth because they dare to publish information that contradict his preconceived notions/NRA funded bullet points.

He gets unhinged the moment holes in his story are pointed out and starts foaming at the mouth about buying firearms and balling up all 97 pounds of himself to try and assault someone, almost as if he's just trying to distract from his abject failure.

And that's not even mentioning his bizarre interpretation of SCOTUS rulings, where the hundreds of rulings that contradict the NRAs recent extremist interpretation of the 2nd amendment simply don't exist, and instead prefers to cherry pick the few that do. I suppose it isn't all that surprising though, seeing as Scalia did the same thing when writing his opinions. Submerged in a sea of NRA misinformation and abject lies, he strikes out with furious anger at anyone who tries to drag him out of the comfortable imaginary wooby he's decided to live in.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)12:55 No. 675 ID: 28802c

>>671
>>673
>>674
Echo chamber.

This is why you guys are retarded.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)19:29 No. 676 ID: 762bfe

>>671
What facts? You mean the ones with no source?
Those are neither facts or legitimate.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)01:40 No. 677 ID: 388706

>>676
I wasn't aware that the definition of 'fact' is "something that has been published by a source you believe". I'll have to update my dictionary.

>>675
You lose, deal with it.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)02:47 No. 679 ID: 72f69e

>>677
Fact as in something you can prove. Not "everything" is a source.

Didn't really lose anything seeing as the law doesn't favor your bullshit and most likely never will.

Also, you never made an argument.

Also, it was never about winning. It was about having a civil conversation, which apparently you're incapable of doing.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:06 No. 681 ID: a19566

>>680
>Use it to kill yourself.

You're a disgusting person. Your mother must be ashamed of you.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:09 No. 682 ID: 388706

>>681
Ah, you replied too fast; edited:

>>679
>thinks armed bystanders are the saviors of society
>has no statistics to prove the merit of this belief
>wants statistics to prove that the number of people murdered by firearms is greater than the number of people saved by armed bystanders

If you really don't own any guns, I think you should go out and buy one. Use it to kill yourself. Guns save lives; the rest of us will be a lot better off without you.

>the law doesn't favor your bullshit
Please tell me what you think my bullshit is and how it has anything to do with the law.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:28 No. 684 ID: 388706
684

File 152496889937.jpg - (19.00KB , 268x178 , what-you-sound-like.jpg )

>>681
Now we're having a /civ/il conversation!


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:32 No. 685 ID: a19566

>>684
If you really want to talk about something that affects people negatively and costs lives, it's suicide.

Suicide is at a record high. People die from loneliness. People die from unhappiness.
For you to say that to a complete stranger, unprovoked, is despicable, and it truly sickens me.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)05:26 No. 686 ID: 388706

>>685
Welcome to the Internet.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)05:51 No. 687 ID: 112a42

>>686
And then you're shocked people go on shooting sprees...


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)08:24 No. 688 ID: 388706

>>687
Me? Not in the least. OP's a ticking timebomb; I'm serious about the rest of us being better off without him.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)15:10 No. 690 ID: 92ff4e

>>688
I meant that as in you and the vast majority of people are callous assholes to people on the internet and then everyone is really taken aback when the least of us goes crazy and shoots up a waffle house or a school or whatever.

The best unpopular people in life or on the internet or both can hope to get from you is dismissed or ignored and the worst is bullied and teased and terrorized.

Then, we blame guns.

Not that it in any way justifies mass murder, but you truly are a garbage hunan being.
I'm sure you'll dismiss this comment or play it off as a joke, much like you do any criticism of yourself, but just letting you know that it's absolutely disgusting to share a platform with you.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)18:58 No. 693 ID: 388706

>>690
>when the least of us goes crazy
>we blame guns
I don't. I blame you; not even the NRA you love so much, but you, personally, for going along with them--advocating putting guns into any hand than can hold them.

There are some people who are callous and mean and some who are crazy and weak. It's been that way since a long time before there was an Internet. Mean people don't make crazy people go on rampages. When someone with enough pent up rage gets their hands on a weapon, they tend to come up with violent solutions to their problems. Nothing absolves them of exercising their free will; they are just as responsible for their own actions as anyone else.

We can't fix meanness, craziness, or weakness, but it's not like we can't do anything about it--we could reduce the body counts. We could restrict access to weapons that enable the mentally ill to create large body counts; we could require regular training and mental health checks for gun owners; there's a lot we could do without repealing your precious amendment.

>it's absolutely disgusting to share a platform with you
You've come to the wrong platform.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)20:09 No. 694 ID: ed5ef3

>>693
>When someone with enough pent up rage gets their hands on a weapon

Like a van or a truck or a knife or a bomb

>We can't fix meanness, craziness, or weakness, but it's not like we can't do anything about it--we could reduce the body counts.

Or you could take some responsibility for your own actions.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)23:35 No. 695 ID: ee9005

>>693
We need more mass shootings, not less. We have to cull the weak, the degenerates, people like yourself.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)04:44 No. 697 ID: 388706

>>694
>Like a van or a truck or a knife or a bomb
Exactly.

>Or you could take some responsibility for your own actions.
>Nothing absolves them of exercising their free will; they are just as responsible for their own actions as anyone else.
>anyone else
I know you didn't complete high school, and this sentence is very long. What I am saying here is that everyone is responsible for their own actions; weak, crazy, mean, stupid, or otherwise.

>>695
To be honest I was very tempted to make a contribution to the cause as a schoolboy, but as an adult I find it far more satisfying to inspire pathetic NRA stooges to kill themselves. I'm still contributing to depopulation, in smaller way.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)05:38 No. 698 ID: ef38e0

>>697
>everyone
Yeah. That includes you, fuckface.

Stop being a douche bag to people for no reason or don't complain when some crazy asshole blows your fucking head off or runs you over in a truck or stabs your dumb ass to death.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)06:31 No. 699 ID: 388706

>>698
>don't complain when some crazy asshole blows your fucking head off
That's some nice passive agressive you've got there.
You're totally not making threats at people, right? >>687
It's going to be their fault when you have to punish them.

If you aren't killing yourself any time soon, the least you could do is check in to some therapy. It's not my fault you're so thin skinned that you can't handle the Internet, but I am a little worried you'll tell the police you murded all those people because someone was mean to you on 7chan. I don't think Saz would appreciate that kind of publicity.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)08:29 No. 700 ID: 7b3bd5

>>699
I really doubt I have the sole honor of being the only person you're a complete asshole to on the internet, and you hand out psych evals and therapy recommendations like candy.

I'm just saying you really can't complain if it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Maybe consider taking some responsibility for the culture you're a part of that causes these killings instead of blaming inanimate objects.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)09:06 No. 703 ID: 7b3bd5

>>699
>That's some nice passive agressive you've got there.
>That's some nice passive aggression you've got there.

Who didn't graduate high school?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)09:09 No. 704 ID: 67518b

>>700
>the culture you're a part of that causes these killings
Pretty sure I explained that people are responsible for their own actions. Twice: >>693 >>697.

>blaming inanimate objects
Pretty sure I explained that I blame you, not guns >>693, and that no one is talking about disarmament except you >>665.

While we're going over every point we've already discussed yet again, might I remind you that you are incapable of having an argument because >>669:
>This is the miracle of the internet: no one ever has to lose an argument, you can just keep going on and on forever because its just text in posts with no consequences.

>I really doubt I have the sole honor of being the only person you're a complete asshole to on the internet
Do you realize where you are? >>665
>This is 7chan, we're monsters, and we don't respond well to programming.
This is not a place for nice people; this is the jungle--you will be attacked because you are weak. It's not impossible to have a civil conversation or to debate and find common ground, but you're going to need to lurk moar and develop the strength of character to compete.

Now, I am done. You never had a point worth making, and I am not interested in your broken-record method of argument.

>>622
>And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void. Go ahead, keep on thinking that more armed people means more safe people. At least you're doing something about our overpopulation problem.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)09:45 No. 706 ID: 7b3bd5

>>704
>Pretty sure I explained that people are responsible for their own actions.

Okay. You can take that attitude all the way to the funeral home.

Massacres happen because people are grieved, not because they have access to weapons.
This attitude that massacres just "happen" and are "part and parcel of life in the modern Western society" is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

The problem is that nobody has any empathy or sympathy. They're all so self-absorbed and unwilling to exert even the most miniscule effort to help outcasts better integrate into society that these outcasts simply lash out in a sperg attack because no one is willing to even attempt to understand or help them.

>Pretty sure I explained that I blame you, not guns

How dare I repeat a constitutional amendment to you! Less rights for anyone who disagrees with me!
I'll deem them all crazy! I took psych 101 after all!

>might I remind you that you are incapable of having an argument because I'm too retarded to make a constructive argument against the status quo based on anything other than my opinion!

K

>blahblahblah I post on chans so I'm the edgiest edgemeister

No comment, grandmaster fag

>This is a myth purpoted by the NRA. Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed. You're already typing some sort of refutation--stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths about the glory of gun ownership that only serve to increase profits for the gun manufacturers who pay the gun lobbyists who take them golfing, throw galas for them in vegas, and get their kids into exclusive schools.

Straight from the horse's mouth! He knows everything! except for the source of this information
He's got a bachelor's degree from state school and reads Facebook articles, so we don't need to question it!

Somebody get this fucking guy a Pulitzer!


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)11:23 No. 707 ID: 67518b

>>706
I know, I said I was done; I really don't want to keep doing this, but you just keep posting...

>so self-absorbed and unwilling to exert even the most miniscule effort to help outcasts better integrate into society
The rest of your blather aside, I'll concede to you on this point--we could reduce the incidence of mass murders by dealing with the mental illness problem in our society. Unfortunately, that's not something that can be easily, permanently, or completely fixed. You have a habit of ignoring anything relevant so let me reiterate everything I said in this post: >>693 Try as we may, there will always be people who are mean and people who are weak and people who are crazy--it's a lot simpler to reduce the number of people killed through regulation than to fix the state of our whole society.

We could work on it, but 7chan isn't the place to start. We need to identify the weak, easily offended, and socially rejected early, and help them develop strength of character in childhood. It isn't that others lack empathy, but that they do not afford it to the weak. If the least of us develop their social skills, stand up for themselves, and not let others offend them so easily, they will be treated more equally. I know, I experienced this first hand when I was young--the day came when I developed strength of character; stood up for myself; and stopped whining about every little offense--and then I recieved respect and empathy.

Still, it's just too much fun trolling you to give up being an asshole on the Internet.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)12:08 No. 708 ID: f007af
708

File 15250829303.png - (41.58KB , 640x278 , Well.png )

>>707
He's not entirely to blame for continuing to post through. People who get wedded into their little ideological bubble often times will react like he does to any attempt to break them out of that bubble. Furious anger and mindless rhetoric about how horrible everyone is that disagrees with their overly simplistic view of the world.

Like pointing out that crimes and deaths involving firearms always drop in states that host NRA conventions during the time of the convention. That it's not a one time aberration, the trend goes back for decades. All those firearm owners stripped of their weapons during much of the convention.

Facts like these and more are why he and the NRA are so terrified of federal research into firearm violence that they year after year write clauses into congressional bills to stop it from occurring. And when Obama forced the CDC to start investigating it they wholehog batshit insane, moving people like OP further into their little protective cocoons.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)12:31 No. 709 ID: 67518b
709

File 152508428675.jpg - (111.45KB , 852x480 , NRA-emergency-debate-strategy.jpg )

>>708
Pic related: NRA emergency debate strategy: cover your ears, close your eyes, and scream about the consitution.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)00:11 No. 710 ID: daa3d2
710

File 152512627231.jpg - (14.24KB , 589x112 , well.jpg )

>>707
>trolling you

Oh, that makes sense. Okay, I guess I'll disregard your bullshit and stop responding to you now.

>>708
More lies, huh? Pretty lame.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)05:42 No. 712 ID: 4e4364

>>710
I like how you again avoided engaging in an actual discussion and disregarded reality all at once there.
Nice work NRA; shoop's not half bad either.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)06:57 No. 714 ID: 7a86a4
714

File 152515063520.jpg - (106.07KB , 592x793 , masterobamasays.jpg )

>>712
>I like how you again avoided engaging in an actual discussion and disregarded reality all at once there.

Obama said I didn't have to respond because you're dumb and don't matter.

>Nice work NRA; shoop's not half bad either.

Look closely and you'll notice that it's not shooped.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)11:42 No. 715 ID: 4c997f

>>714
You have no reason to believe this but I am genuinely concerned about your mental illness. You should be in therapy; you should be on medication. I don't think you are a physical threat to anyone, but I am concerned that you have lost the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)17:16 No. 717 ID: c212c7

>>715
What's your medical background again?
Nonexistent?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)17:54 No. 719 ID: 3d0bd0

>>717
By the way, are you dbbs?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)18:37 No. 720 ID: 4753e3

>>719
Why are you asking me? Ask Fraud Freud over here >>715


>>
Anonymous 18/05/02(Wed)06:40 No. 721 ID: f007af
721

File 152523600856.jpg - (37.28KB , 640x595 , Is It Real Or Is It Alcohol.jpg )

>>710
>More lies
Oh god, you really need to get out of your fantasy bubble in a while.

I was referencing a peer reviewed study that was published last week.

Given that you're so level headed and even keeled I'm surprised you hadn't heard about it, given that you're so interested in finding out the truth rather than just regurgitating the same old tired lines of bullshit the NRA has been feeding ammosexuals for years.

Pic related, its what you see at night that makes you clutch your firearms tight.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/02(Wed)08:38 No. 722 ID: f007af
722

File 152524312219.jpg - (43.72KB , 720x720 , True Bravery.jpg )

>>717
Anyone who would be driven to purchase a firearm because someone online else made fun of their lack of genitals isn't exactly the kind of person who should have easy access to firearms. The same kind of people can be driven to eat their firearm by reading online comments.

We're only thinking about your safety, since you clearly have trouble foreseeing the consequences of your decisions.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/02(Wed)13:28 No. 723 ID: 049883

>>721
>>722
You're trying too hard now.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/03(Thu)06:20 No. 724 ID: 8d577d

>Like pointing out that crimes and deaths involving firearms always drop in states that host NRA conventions during the time of the convention. That it's not a one time aberration, the trend goes back for decades. All those firearm owners stripped of their weapons during much of the convention.
>crimes and deaths involving firearms
>given that you're so interested in finding out the truth

It was on firearm related injuries, liar.

>fantasy bubble

Here's an excerpt:
>This observational study does not provide conclusive evidence about the NRA's influence on gun safety overall and "cannot be causally attributed to the meetings themselves"

So, yeah. More lies.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)08:44 No. 725 ID: f007af
725

File 152541625355.jpg - (201.28KB , 1280x1334 , Kanye.jpg )

>>724
Well of course they said that, they don't want to run afoul of the dickey amendment.

They really make them slow in your part of the country, don't they?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)08:46 No. 726 ID: f007af

>>723
>replies to two different people
>trying too hard
So how many times do you perform fellatio on yourself each day?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)10:22 No. 727 ID: 4f680e

>>725
What part of the country are you from again?

>replies to two different people
Both your replies that have the same ID you have now >>726 replying to me trying really hard to elicit some emotional response.

You confusing yourself now caught up in your own retarded trolling?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)16:13 No. 728 ID: 11d5aa
728

File 152544320896.jpg - (152.32KB , 880x660 , logician-for-the-nra_live-long-and-arm-yourself.jpg )

>>727
>trying really hard to elicit some emotional response
See that, that's what I mean by passive agressive [implied noun here]
ergo, passive agressive [tedancy,provocation,agression]
Level up your 3rd world English.
>>699

Live long, and arm yourself.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)18:26 No. 729 ID: cb8d58

>>728
>trying to use an adjective as a noun and defend it

Are you an English teacher?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)19:49 No. 730 ID: e1fd41

>>727
>Both your replies that have the same ID you have now
Confirmation that your family tree intersects with itself multiple times and you live in a compound in Montana/Utah filled with family members.

Go back and look at the two responses in question. Notice how they are replying to two different poster IDs. Notice how one could easily say they're replying to two different people.

Maybe, just maybe, the only one who's an idiot here is you, ammosexual. Maybe, just maybe, you could stop being an idiot if you stopped wasting so much time dreaming of all the ways you can murder your fellow citizens with your arsenal.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)19:53 No. 731 ID: e1fd41
731

File 152545642744.jpg - (94.06KB , 482x784 , Facebook For Dummies 4.jpg )

>>729
You completely missed that he misspelled aggressive. Twice.

So when do you graduate from elementary school?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/05(Sat)05:13 No. 732 ID: 94c1d6

>>729
>>731
>he misspelled aggressive. Twice.
You got me; I'm a failure. At least I can admit when I am wrong.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/05(Sat)07:53 No. 733 ID: e1fd41
733

File 152549959941.jpg - (48.62KB , 750x701 , Anything Is Possible.jpg )

>>732
If that was true you'd have admitted it a long, long time ago.

Well, keep wetting the bed, little "man."


90 posts omitted. First 100 shown.
[Return]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason