Guns don't cause people who aren't predisposed to violence to kill. But they are a hell of a lot more efficient at killing people than knives, baseball bats, etc. Don't believe me, ask any NRA type what type of weapon he (or she) would prefer to have for self defense, and why.

The weapon of choice for mass shooters is, obviously, firearms. Unless you have some proficiency with explosives, there is simply no better means for killing a church, or a school, or whatever, full of people that guns. Seeing as how we are having so many of these mass shootings, it would seems that smart people would take aggressive steps to limit the ability of people prone to such activity to get their hands on guns.

But we can't be smart, because of the second amendment. The second amendment makes taking guns from people who should not have them impossible. And the prevailing mood in the U.S. is that is OK.

Therefore, I think it is about time to stop bitching about all the mass shootings we have in this country. The right does not give a shit, and it is the right that has defined the second amendment. Mass shootings are simply the price we pay for having a second amendment

They know the truth but can't admit it.
Here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lFAjxtu3U0U

We don't need people having AK-47 and high power rifles so they can shoot up school or malls.

It's called the Bill Of Rights not the bill Of needs.

The point of the second ammendment is government control. Worldwide governments have historically been responsible for almost all murder. The second amendment is a check on abusive government. That's why more powerful weapons should be inder control of the individual

Pc retardz Wrote:
> The second amendment is a check on abusive government.

That might have been true when the Founding Fathers drafted the 2nd amendment, when the local militia and the Continental Army has more or less the same firepower. It is a nonsensical argument today when the government has tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons. If the US government decides to "oppress" you, your little peashooters won't be a check on anything.

"the government has tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons."

The government had all those things during the decade long Vietnam War and seventeen years into Afghanistan. It's never the size of the dog in the fight. The outcome is always determined by the fight in the dog.

Pc retardz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point of the second ammendment is government
> control. Worldwide governments have historically
> been responsible for almost all murder. The
> second amendment is a check on abusive government.
> That's why more powerful weapons should be inder
> control of the individual

So would you consider victims of mass shootings to be the collateral damage of an otherwise just fight to avoid oppressive government?

So wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pc retardz Wrote:
> > The second amendment is a check on abusive
> government.
>
> That might have been true when the Founding
> Fathers drafted the 2nd amendment, when the local
> militia and the Continental Army has more or less
> the same firepower. It is a nonsensical argument
> today when the government has tanks, fighter jets,
> and nuclear weapons. If the US government
> decides to "oppress" you, your little peashooters
> won't be a check on anything.

So, you are suggesting that the US military should be turned against the people? That's exactly the reason the Second Amendment exists. It doesn't matter if it might be a lost cause. It's a check against a tyrannical government. Private citizens don't have the same economic resources available as the US government either.

Just think how easy it would have been for Lincoln to steal lawful property from Southerners had they not been armed.

personally, i would call:

* gun fanaticism is a "liberal" thing to do

* hunting and well `regulated' militia are conservative

self protection wise if you live in poorly regulated legislation districts*

(high crime / rate / robbery areas)

Sparks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's called the Bill Of Rights not the bill Of
> needs.

Are you a militia, asshole? Let alone a well-regulated militia. You have NO need for and no right to an AK-47 and other weapons of mass murder. Your pathetic need to ‘prove’ your manhood does not supercede the right of the rest of us to be protected from you idiots.

No AK-47s! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We don't need people having AK-47 and high power
> rifles so they can shoot up school or malls.


Some of us do need AK-47s & we don't want to shoot up malls or schools. We do, however, want to shoot up gangs of negro thugs who commit crime in our neighborhoods.

So wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a nonsensical argument
> today when the government has tanks, fighter jets,
> and nuclear weapons. If the US government
> decides to "oppress" you, your little peashooters
> won't be a check on anything.


Tell that to the boys & girls who are coming back from deployment in Afghanistan & Iraq & Syria, or tell it to the families whose sons, daughters, husbands and wives are not coming home.

All you need to know Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P
> So would you consider victims of mass shootings to
> be the collateral damage of an otherwise just
> fight to avoid oppressive government?


Ask the gov't. that when it starts killing people.

Sparks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's called the Bill Of Rights not the bill Of
> needs.

Yeah. If it was the bill of needs it'll have
pussy
beer
pizza
what else?

No AK-47s! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We don't need people having AK-47 and high power
> rifles so they can shoot up school or malls.


I agree with this but I also agree u should get the death penalty for trespassing