I'm starting to sniff around for a Kel Tec PMR30. 30+1 rounds of extra scary "magnum" in the palm of my hands. Just sayin
I'm starting to sniff around for a Kel Tec PMR30. 30+1 rounds of extra scary "magnum" in the palm of my hands. Just sayin
Will that be enough to keep you safe as you are trembling in fear in your mothers basement?
Better get extra mags and a vest.
Not going to critique your choice of weapons though, but someone should.
Not really. Also muskets may have been the "common" fire arm at the time, but there were other more advanced guns at the time if rare. Also, within the lifetime of all those that wrote the declaration the advances in firearm technology continued to give them rapid fire capabilities close to what anyone has access today in doing. They could have hundreds of years ago changed the Constitution if they only meant the common man to own muskets or "hunting" only weapons. You think people that wrote the Constitution during a great time of industrial evolution that was making massive progress in technologies everywhere couldn't see that firearms and weapons of "war" would advance too? You are really dumb to even think that people at any given point in time can only focus on the present and not imagine future changes.
Hell in 100 years people like you would be arguing that people of today never imagined they would be using flechette rifles, hand railguns, or lasers, or whatever advanced weaponry humans finally make. That's the lame brain argument you are making now. You don't think people back then could imagine weapons that fired quicker and more accurate? Because if they couldn't imagine it, they couldn't work towards the development of it and we'd still be using muskets the world over. Heck, with the retarded theory you've spouted we should all be using clubs as weapons of war today because no human capable of drafting the Constitution is capable of foreseeing technological improvements in the future to weapons.
Good points that would do more to save the lives of citizens, especially children, than any other law or regulation i'd ever seen offered by the anti-gun side. Too bad they are not really concerned with saving lives.1) It's a written Constitutional Right.
2) Guns are prevalent in our country. Even if you never intend to own a gun, doesn't mean you'll never come in contact with them
Having everyone educated about gun history, safety, and training can only be a good thing. Even if a given individual never intends to own a gun. General education along those lines doesn't need to focus on the "training" aspect as much as someone looking to make a purchase. But basic gun safety education and history will go a long way to helping every American understand a bit more about BOTH sides of the gun control debate.
Explain. Progress has been made in both areas. Citizens had weapons equivalent to what soldiers carried in that day and they probably should now.
I own a home and don't tremble. I will get extra mags. Good, be quiet then.
Gawd. An expert AR15 shooter can discharge a 30 round magazine in ~15 seconds or less. A bump fire stock can easily do the same. A Ferguson rifle could fire perhaps 3 rounds in the same time frame. Reload times aren't even in the same universe.
Charles Carroll was the last surviving signatory to the Constitution & died in 1835. The first commercially available pinfire cartridges were offered the following year as was the Colt Paterson revolver. The latter didn't even use cartridges but rather rammed powder, balls & percussion caps. Some disassembly was required to do so. The first true cartridge firing repeating rifle was the Henry, introduced in 1860. Smokeless powder & Clip fed rifles weren't used Until after the Civil War & detachable box magazines only came into use in ~1900.
Taj, please clean up your straw on aisle 20.
It there any incident that you are aware of where the cops actually stopped a mass murderer? It seems they always allow the shooter to expend every last cartridge before they decide to ever so cautiously engage.
Every mass shooting seems to be the same. The only time I can recall an actual intervention was when the guy shot up a military complex and a soldier engaged him. It there any incident that you are aware of where the cops actually stopped a mass murderer? It seems they always allow the shooter to expend every last cartridge before they decide to ever so cautiously engage.
Good points that would do more to save the lives of citizens, especially children, than any other law or regulation i'd ever seen offered by the anti-gun side. Too bad they are not really concerned with saving lives.
No, the bank owns your home and you pay them to keep it, *I* own my home.
I own my home in a nation where I've never felt the need to be armed to defend my home, I'm not the one arguing that guns are needed for me to defend myself, kid.
You are.
If you were not fearful and trembling, you would never argue that.
No, the bank owns your home and you pay them to keep it, *I* own my home.
I own my home in a nation where I've never felt the need to be armed to defend my home, I'm not the one arguing that guns are needed for me to defend myself, kid.
You are.
If you were not fearful and trembling, you would never argue that.
How is setting up to shoot thousands of people not "seeking" to become the greatest mass murderer in history? He did his best, and succeeded in terms of the US at least. That's pretty amazing, and it puts him in the top 5 on earth.
You cannot include bombings because he was not a bomber. He was a mass shooter. If you include bombings, then the US army are the "greatest mass murderers" in history. Is that your argument? That Paddock was right and the US government are the "real mass murderers"?
Sounds a lot like what al-Jazeera might think...
Though this line of thinking is presumably grist to the mill of those who want more of the public to be armed.
I don't know what happened post-Columbine. Seems like the problem was with the guidelines and rules the police and SWAT were following, which don't seem to have been well-suited to what was actually happening. But maybe those guidelines and procedures were suitably amended after that event?
Idiot
If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was your nation that gave rise to the 2A. It's hard to discuss matters of freedom with an Imperialist.
You are mistaken, the amendment was created to keep a standing militia.
Today's interpretation has nothing what so ever to do with the second amendment at all.
But I suppose the lost support by the French who won the war of independence for you and gave you a statue that you think is not all that good because you hate immigrants more than you fucking hate the people in your own community that ARE the problem.
A nation of retarded people deserves having Trump, the retarded Alzheimer patient, as their representative I suppose.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was your nation that gave rise to the 2A. It's hard to discuss matters of freedom with an Imperialist.
What I don't understand is that just about the only situations where the cops are timid and cautious are when somebody is actively butchering innocent civilians. There are a laundry list of incidents of police being over aggressive. If there is ever a time to be even mildly aggressive, it is during a mass shooting.
In other news, let get ready to rumble - https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-marine-challenges-apos-king-112839232.html
and YouTube removes a bunch of videos about bump stocks and guns mods - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/youtube-bans-gun-modding-tutorials-201900931.html
In other news, let get ready to rumble - https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-marine-challenges-apos-king-112839232.html
and YouTube removes a bunch of videos about bump stocks and guns mods - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/youtube-bans-gun-modding-tutorials-201900931.html