Fucking Wal Mart!!

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
#81
AND YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO LEARN THE TRUTH. ONLY AS YOU SEE IT. GIVING YOU DIFFERENT FACTS IS NOT ORANGES. IT WOULDNT MATER WHERE I LIVED, I WOULDNT LIVE IN FEAR. BESIDES, IF I MOVED AGAIN, I WOULD MOVE NEXT DOOR TO YOU SO I COULD BLOW YOU A KISS EVERY MORNING. SEE YOU IN ANOTHER THREAD MY FRIEND. :Biggrin::Thumbsup:
See, that's the issue. There are no "other" facts. Facts are facts. Anything else is incorrect. I've given you stats from FBI and other gov. websites. Even long term data from 1950 to present. They coincide with what I've told you.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
#82
The major, and most important fact is that the constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms. Doesn't say muzzle loaders. Doesn't say sling shots. ARMS. Any law that inhibits that right is unconstitutional and should be reconsidered.
So where is the line on what constitutes "arms"? By my reading, this means I should be able to acquire and own rockets, grenades, anti-aircraft cannons, etc... up to and including nuclear weapons, as they are all arms to help protect my country if needed.

Can I mount a 50-cal and a couple sidewinders on my Cessna?

I guess my point is, if we are not allowed to own functioning arms of this magnitude, where is the line drawn? Must it be a weapon that can be carried and fired while on or held by the person? Is the line at barrel length, round size, round powder load, or rounds the weapon can hold? I wonder what the gun range would say about getting some practice in with a bazooka?

And I'm still LMAO at the thought of WAMO blowing you kisses through the kitchen window every morning while you're sipping coffee!! :Roflmao:
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
#83
So where is the line on what constitutes "arms"? By my reading, this means I should be able to acquire and own rockets, grenades, anti-aircraft cannons, etc... up to and including nuclear weapons, as they are all arms to help protect my country if needed.

Can I mount a 50-cal and a couple sidewinders on my Cessna?

I guess my point is, if we are not allowed to own functioning arms of this magnitude, where is the line drawn? Must it be a weapon that can be carried and fired while on or held by the person? Is the line at barrel length, round size, round powder load, or rounds the weapon can hold? I wonder what the gun range would say about getting some practice in with a bazooka?

And I'm still LMAO at the thought of WAMO blowing you kisses through the kitchen window every morning while you're sipping coffee!! :Roflmao:
The original intent was to have the same fire power as the government so as to not allow a take over like the one the settlers left behind. Yes, we should be able to purchase anything the military has. BUT, thru years of assholes and cuntwipes making their own rules we now have gun laws that are in direct violation of the constitution.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
#84
ORIGINAL INTENT? I DONT SEE THAT ANYWHERE. SO YOUR "INTERPRETATION" IS YOUR VERSION OF INTENT. OR DOES THE FBI HAVE A STAT ON THAT TOO? NOONE LIVING KNOWS THEIR INTENT. MY INTERPRETATION IS THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT 2019 WOULD BE LIKE. OR THAT WE WOULD BE TURNING THESE "ARMS" ON OTHER AMERICANS. THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE LEFT IT SO OPEN TO INTERPRETAION HAD THEY KNOWN. THEY WERE SHORTSIDED IN NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FUTURE WOULD BRING. THE FACTS I GAVE ARE FOR MORE ACCURATE THAN WHAT THE FBI STATED. THE FBI ONLY WANT AMERICANS TO FEEL SAFE. BUT EVEN ACCORDING TO U, THAT IS NOT TRUE. SO WHATEVER THE FBI CAME OUT WITH IS MISLEADING. AND DIDNT YOU JUST CALL THE PEOPLE YOUR QUOTING, FBI AND OTHER GOV WEBSITES, ASSHOLES AND CUNTWIPES? HUH? :Confused:
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
#85
ORIGINAL INTENT? I DONT SEE THAT ANYWHERE. SO YOUR "INTERPRETATION" IS YOUR VERSION OF INTENT. OR DOES THE FBI HAVE A STAT ON THAT TOO? NOONE LIVING KNOWS THEIR INTENT. MY INTERPRETATION IS THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT 2019 WOULD BE LIKE. OR THAT WE WOULD BE TURNING THESE "ARMS" ON OTHER AMERICANS. THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE LEFT IT SO OPEN TO INTERPRETAION HAD THEY KNOWN. THEY WERE SHORTSIDED IN NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FUTURE WOULD BRING. THE FACTS I GAVE ARE FOR MORE ACCURATE THAN WHAT THE FBI STATED. THE FBI ONLY WANT AMERICANS TO FEEL SAFE. BUT EVEN ACCORDING TO U, THAT IS NOT TRUE. SO WHATEVER THE FBI CAME OUT WITH IS MISLEADING. AND DIDNT YOU JUST CALL THE PEOPLE YOUR QUOTING, FBI AND OTHER GOV WEBSITES, ASSHOLES AND CUNTWIPES? HUH? :Confused:
No, Assholes and cuntwipes are in congress and have nothing to do with FBI. Also, we cannot pick and choose which pieces of the document fit our arguments and toss the others away. So, if the right to bear arms doesn't apply in 2019, then neither does 1A apply to internet, radio, TV, telephones, etc. Plus, the document should NOT be open to interpretation. All one has to do is consider the dictionary and phraseology of the time in which the document was written to determine it's intent. This document is timeless and absolute genius. What these "lawmakers" need to do is stop fucking it up by twisting the words to fit their own agendas. It IS the perfect document as written.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
#86
OK, GOV WEBSITES, ASSHOLES AND CUNTWIPES. DICTIONARY AND PHRASEOLOGY OF THE TIME? FOLLOWING THAT TRAIN OF THOUGHT AS WRITTEN, THEN YES, MUSSLELOADERS AND SLING SHOTS. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
#88
The original intent was to have the same fire power as the government so as to not allow a take over like the one the settlers left behind. Yes, we should be able to purchase anything the military has. BUT, thru years of assholes and cuntwipes making their own rules we now have gun laws that are in direct violation of the constitution.
In your opinion, would the United States be better or worse if the general public were allowed to own rockets and nuclear warheads?

I'm not sure I want to imagine what could have been if Timothy McVeigh had access to a nuclear bomb.
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
#89
In your opinion, would the United States be better or worse if the general public were allowed to own rockets and nuclear warheads?

I'm not sure I want to imagine what could have been if Timothy McVeigh had access to a nuclear bomb.
See, here's the thing. Rockets and nuclear warheads would not be used for protection by a sane person.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
#91
FROM THE CDC: 2017 GUN DEATHS - 15,549 - INCREASE OVER 2016 - HIGHEST SINCE THE 1990'S.
NEARLY 40,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM GUNS IN 2017 - HIGHEST IN 50 YEARS - MURDERS COMMITED WITH A FIREARM ROSE TO A RECORD HIGH.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
#93
IN STATES THAT HAVE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, THERE ARE 35% LESS GUN MURDERS THAN STATES THAT DONT HAVE THEM.
THERE IS ZERO, NADA, NONE, NO EVIDENCE THAT CONCEALED CARRY WOULD PREVENT MASS SHOOTINGS.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
#94
MURDER RATE FOR 2018 7.6% LOWER THAN 2017. THANKS LARGELY TO"SHARP DECLINES" IN SAN FRAN (-35%) / CHICAGO (-23.2%) / BALTIMORE (-20.9%) ALL HAVE STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
#95
THE FBI STATS ARE NO MORE FACTUAL THAN ANY OTHER. THE FBI DOESNT TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ITS COUNT, ONLY WHAT IT DEAMS NECESSARY STATS.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
#96
NOT SURE THE 2A SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT A SANE PERSON USING THIS OR THAT. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS STATED REPEATEDLY THAT WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO ANY GOVERNMENT WEAPON. HOW THAT PERSON WANTS TO USE IT IS THEIR BUSINESS.
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
#98
THE FBI STATS ARE NO MORE FACTUAL THAN ANY OTHER. THE FBI DOESNT TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ITS COUNT, ONLY WHAT IT DEAMS NECESSARY STATS.
You still didn't tell it all. How many were suicides? How many justified? How many accidental? How many in gun-free zones? How many in gun-friendly zone? It all adds up as I showed a long time ago.
 

Greg T.

The Jazz Singer
#99
Not even against a tyrannical government that has turned the military against its citizens?
You're not going to see a (sane) government nuke it's own country in order to force compliance. The idea of a tyrannical government is to make the people submit by disarming them. Not turning the country into an ice rink.
 

WAMO

Addicted Member
AND THATS WHERE WE DIFFER G. IM TALKING ABOUT ALL GUN DEATHS AND GUN VIOLENCE. IM NOT SEPARATING ANY DIFFERENCES. A GUN DEATH IS A GUN DEATH. PERIOD. IF YOU WISH TO SEPARATE ONE FROM ANOTHER, THEN YOU ARE NOT BEING FACTUAL.
 
Top