The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on April 21, 2013, 09:13:32 PM
-
newmember (38 posts)
I'm new but there seems to be a lot of firearm threads , to all gun owners on the site
I want to state that I support your right to own firearms.
Can't gun owners themselves come together and support common sense laws?
Get rid of handgun ownership since most firearm crimes are committed with handguns.
If a person wanted to own a handgun there could be state owned ranges where the gun would have to be kept.
Limit ownership of rifles that fire one bullet at a time , each time to fire a bullet you would have to pull
the handle back .
This way people could still hunt or target shoot and it wouldn't restrict their hobby.
Does this sound too draconian to the gun owners here?
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022731933
We have enough "common sense" laws on the books already.
This notion that the millions of gun owners across this nation who have not, nor will have an incident with a gun need to be controlled is pure nonsense.
-
Can't gun owners themselves come together and support common sense laws?
Get rid of handgun ownership since most firearm crimes are committed with handguns.
How about getting rid of street gangs since they are the ones causing most of the firearm violence?
Hint for you dumbasses: it's not legal firearm owners to who are responsible for Chicago's 500+ homicides this year.
-
I say what we need is less gun control. Detroit,Chicago,New York and L.A. all have tighter gun laws then say here and their crime rates are huge compared to cities that have fewer restrictions.
-
newmember (38 posts)
I'm new but there seems to be a lot of firearm threads , to all gun owners on the site I want to state that I support your right to own firearms.
...
Get rid of handgun ownership since most firearm crimes are committed with handguns...
Actual stupid DUmmtard noob or really, really poor mole trying 'waaaayyyy too hard to sound like a true idiot, you decide.
:lmao:
-
I say what we need is less gun control. Detroit,Chicago,New York and L.A. all have tighter gun laws then say here and their crime rates are huge compared to cities that have fewer restrictions.
Well Airwolf... they are all democrat shitholes. The only thing that would clean those places up is to cut off HUD, welfare, etc. Once the women quit spreading their legs, then the pavement apes will disappear within a generation.
I think that is the only solution. :fuelfire: :fuelfire:
-
I say what we need is less gun control. Detroit,Chicago,New York and L.A. all have tighter gun laws then say here and their crime rates are huge compared to cities that have fewer restrictions.
Bingo! I used to live in Kennesaw where gun ownership is the law. Very very little crime there.
-
Can't gun owners themselves come together and support common sense laws?
Get rid of handgun ownership since most firearm crimes are committed with handguns.
(http://www.pharmapassport.com/blog/uploaded_images/headache-756658.jpg)
I thought mental retardation was due to chromosomal defect.
Bingo! I used to live in Kennesaw where gun ownership is the law. Very very little crime there.
Have the same law here (not enforced) since '82. Not one gun crime since.
Not one.
-
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/9/6/8/4/5/Which-one-is-safer-from-home-invasionDuh-60952124670.jpeg)
-
I want to state that I support your right to own firearms.
Um, no you don't.
Can't gun owners themselves come together and support common sense laws?
If there were any, maybe. Or maybe if the government actually, you know, ENFORCED the 20,000 laws already on the books.
Get rid of handgun ownership since most firearm crimes are committed with handguns.
Yeah, good luck with that. So much for supporting my right to own a firearm.
If a person wanted to own a handgun there could be state owned ranges where the gun would have to be kept.
Guess that whole Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment don't mean much to you, do they? And if some bad guy came a-knockin at 2 am, how would I obtain said weapon to defend myself?
Limit ownership of rifles that fire one bullet at a time , each time to fire a bullet you would have to pull
the handle back .
Newsflash, dipshit, I don't know of ANY weapon that fires more than one bullet at a time. Last time I checked, there isn't a gun that has 389 bullets in the chamber.
This way people could still hunt or target shoot and it wouldn't restrict their hobby.
Newsflash again--read the Second Amendment. Hunting? Hobby? Yeah, not so much.
Does this sound too draconian to the gun owners here?
Nah...matter of fact, let's make you register your computer, keep it at a government computer storage, and make it so you can't post more than one letter at a time without rebooting after every keystroke. That oughta be fair, since the First Amendment never discussed computers or the Internet when they wrote it up, right?