The white on white gun homicide rate in the US is of little to no concern to those of us who live here. (and I'm talking the real white on white stats. Not those fake news stats that include the very violent hispanics in with whites)

Ship the blacks and browns of the US to Australia, Finland, Switzerland, Canada and so on and watch the homicide rates there explode using whatever weapons are available to them.

Here I thought the topic was GUNS

not white's black's and brown's

So...
How do you stop the gun massicure's ?
Hearing a lot of talk and no action while it gets even worse.
All talk, no action.
Where is the action !

I have lost 4 friends from them in the last 3 years. At this rate, I will not have many left in 8.
Perhaps they will give me a break and go after Yours next !

This is the list I used. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html

the white man is by faaaaaaaar the most violent species on this planet and nobody out-invades, out-bombs, out-robs the white man or even comes close...you can ship any skin color out/in/up/down it does not matter, the white man will always be the most violent savage, and one country in particular will always be the cradle of violence...the only way to protect yourself is to arm the fuck up :2 cents::2 cents:

But that doesn't go far enough. You can't predict whether their first crime is walking into a public place and shooting people, or when someone will turn mental, etc.

Have you never heard of an STD test?

In the US they need far stricter laws because of the culture of someone committing suicide and deciding to go out in a blaze of publicity. In Canada the laws are proving inadequate.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/gun-...a-isnt-immune/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...erica/10041096

Which you are prepared to accept. So you can keep your fully operating guns.


A. Get rid of violent video games and then new assault weapons won't seem cool

B. Triple all prison sentences for recreational drug possession with no possibility of parole. Death penalty for dealers/growers/etc

C. Destroy the socialists and communists that both infest our universities and protect transnational corporations from having to deal with competition from a completely free open market.

On A. and B. you oppose the free open market. On C. you are in favour of it. Is the defining point of an open market going to be what you like or don't like?

Shouldn't we ban idiots before guns??

Which is only good as of the moment the test is taken. If you're not the very 1st fuck thrown in her right after the blood draw then the test is damn useless.

Or how about the fact that the tests have a margin of error?
Or the fact that most of the girls in this biz escort?

Sure the broad gets an STD test on Monday and by Saturday she ends up on your set and you're the 18th man to stuff his cock in her that week.

Geezzz when you think about it it sounds really dangerous. Perhaps we need stricter controls on cocks and cunts?
Fair enough!!!

Let's ban trucks and cars because in France some lunatic behind the wheel killed 86 people and the injured 458 others.

While we're at it Britain needs to ban knives because there were 1,299 stabbings in London as of the end of April this year according to official statistics from the Met Police.

Tell me Paul are you prepared to have your kitchen knives "decommissioned" and just eat with spoons? Is there anyway you can think of to keep knives from people that might go bat shit crazy?

Tell you what... When knives, vehicles and planes are banned I'll get rid of my guns. I'll go quietly into a retirement home and eat only baby food through a straw.

Stop making sense, you're going to piss everyone off.

So you agree that all your tests aren't fool proof.


And please stop bringing up stupid arguments. We need cars and knives a lot more than you need guns, you want to keep your collection for no real reason at all. Other than it makes you feel good. That's the problem, people collecting operational guns for stupid reasons.

So long as you're able to identify an idiot prior to him doing something bad with a gun. That's a great idea. Do you and notinmybackyard qualify?

Oh for fuck sakes you're the moron in a pack of idiots.

You've probably never even held a gun never mind having to go through the legal requirements to get licensed and own one. But yet here you are spouting off like you're some kind of fucking expert on the subject and all you've done is read a handful of news sites.


Well ain't that something coming from a Chirping Brit.

I guess your mommy and daddy forgot to tell you when you were a little boy but if it wasn't for evil guns you would be talking German today.

Correction: You're a degenerate pornographer with bad teeth so if it hadn't been for good men with guns risking their lives on everyone's behalf... You would been shoved in an oven with all the other low lifes the 3rd Reich would have wanted to get rid of.


Not only do you owe every freedom you have to guns but you also owe your life to them.

Holy shit not only are you way out of line but you sound like the villiage idiot. "If it wasn't for evil guns you'd be speaking German" what a piece of shit thing to say. Stupid on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

You dumb ass millennials have had someone wipe your asses for you all of your lives and absolutely fucking clueless about how the world works. Your entire concept of the world is at best based on the Power Rangers and Pokeman card. Everything you have is because someone took a violent stand against a greedy belligerent bastard.

Humans are violent and they prey on the weak. If it wasn't for good guys with weapons you would murdered the first time someone bigger than you didn't like something you said. You would be living in a shit hole if it weren't for guns.

Now if you're arguing that only the government should have guns then what will you cry about when discover that it hasn't stopped any gun crimes?

https://media.giphy.com/media/cfbrIflSnVSTK/giphy.gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/OpulentIdi...restricted.gif

https://www.9to5animations.com/wp-co...-fire-fail.gif

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/70/62...f5fa1f7465.gif

:thumbsup....but I am sure she got her man ;)

You sound like the kind of disturbed person who shouldn't own a gun.

Plus you sound about as dumb as a brick

:thumbsup :thumbsup

His arguments have earned him a place on my ignore list.

The people who fought in the 2nd world war, were trained soldiers and not any idiot whop owned a gun. In fact it was the idiots who started the Nazi Party, Hitler and WW2.

His comments are moronic on so many levels, I'm sure he must be trolling.

have you been on this alliance with your collection guns?
did all the snipers of the past decades do ?

this argument is poor as we are not talking about unarming an army.

if you would really READ the second amendment carefully you would also know that this right to civil person is NOT given there.

a cilvil person can not be called " axwel regulated" militia. thatwould be called anarchy.
because collective orders or decisions that exist in the case of a militia do not exist.
at the time at which s´der 2. constitutional amendment was written there was also no such militia.

at the latest with the introduction of the homeland security there is this "well regulated militia" on which the 2, constitutional amendment aims.

A militia is a body of organized citizens that are "non-professional soldiers."

ie: Civilians that have taken up arms for defense or in an emergency situation.

Polish and French resistance forces during WW2 are good examples of a militia. However a group of self-organizing men armed with baseball bats protecting their businesses during a riot are also considered a militia.

The right to bear arms and the right to form a militia are in the same amendment, but are two different clauses.

Since nothing definitive was described as to what kind of arms, it leaves it to the court to make the final interpretation. Congress 'could' add definition but will not.
Same with what constitutes a organized militia.

The courts consider other writing of the founding fathers in consideration as to the intent of the writing. But it leaves a political divide. Both sides can make a argument for different intent.

Congress can supplement and further describe what was not described, but they can not nullify the amendment. But the states can, just 'not congress'.

Some of you are old enough to remember the last time the states proposed a amendment to know what the process is. It's long and slow.

There is nothing forbidding a well trained or 'pro' soldiers from partaking in militia's in US law.
The state national guard and state guard reserves are considered a militia. And they were somewhat nationalized during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep from starting up the draft again.

The point of the matter is that it's the right of private citizens in a time of need to organize themselves into an armed force.

It can be the aftermath of a natural disaster, riots, etc.
We have the right to use our weapons (guns) to defend lives and property.

On that note... The police tend to only show up AFTER a crime has been committed. So I'm sorry but if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night I'm going to put several bullets into them and then take my chances with the legal system.

You should research District of Columbia v. Heller, and Caetano v. Massachusetts.

Maybe you'll find a clue and stop making yourself look like a retard.

You'd probably be better off not trying to tell us what our Constitution says and stop trying to interpret it, because you're not very good at it.

well if we discuss that point we should discuss it in the way of the meaning. and the meaning of "militia"is quite clear:

none of the described fits to a civilian who owns a gun because there's neither any kind of organization nor command structure.

this - until then non-existent - militia was created in 2002 by homeland security

you should find a way to speak to the founding fathers.
the word of corrupt politicians and judges does not replace thinking. with you, however, this advice probably comes much too late.

The US Government and the courts had already limited what arms the general public can own. Limiting then further should be easy. So why is it a problem? Do Americans support the present status quo and happy to see mass shootings increase? Or are they willing to accept increased mass shootings in order to keep their present rights?

The problem is neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to put this to the people.

So you and your girlfriend Paul think that your opinions outweigh the Supreme Court of the USA.

What a funny pair of clowns. :1orglaugh

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."

There. Now you fuckin foreigners can stop trying to tell us how it should be, and instead just accept how it is. The opinion of foreigners is worth less than shit to us, we don't care about how you think we should live over here. Go back to being subjects of your own country. We aren't subjects over here.

i thought hiv had a 6 month incubation period..

You put our point very well here.

"This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. "

To own a gun. But they do regulate what gun that can be. They have regulated that the word "Arms" doesn't include anything more than a gun.

Thank you for joining our side. :thumbsup

English isn't even your first language and you're relying on google to make up for your lack of information and it shows.

Different STI's have different incubation times.

Chlamydia is as little as 24hrs
Gonorrhea is 48hrs
Syphilis is 3 to 6 weeks.

And you should note that there's still a possibility that someone might pass the infection during the incubation period. The further along they are in the incubation period then the greater the chances that they can pass the disease.

As for HIV you should know that the PCR-DNA test is considered worthless by the vast majority of virologists and the medical community.

The ELISA test is what's needed to confirm HIV when someone was **Exposed** to HIV (IE: had unprotected sex with someone known to be HIV Positive.) they need to wait 3 months before the test can successfully conclude if they're infected or not... Then they'll need to re-test at 6 months to confirm their status.

As I said earlier... A dame tests clear on Monday but you're the 18th fuck in her on Friday and no one is going to know fuck all for 3 to 6 months.

As for how this relates to guns..
Life comes with risks and you can take every single precaution possible and there will still be bad things happening to good people.

Nobody has proposed or attempted to propose that you will not have that right.
I have plenty of guns in my home. All for protection of life and property.

I don't need to carry a Ar15 into the local walmart or bar. If I must fear that others will and might use them, I will no go there. Great for commerce isn't it.
Some folks answer seems to be everyone should and must carry one for protection that you would not need if there were protections of the wrong folks getting them who might use them in the wrong way. Since nobody can make a test for that to execute, why allow it.


If you would spend more time and effort trying to fix that one issue within your locality, you might be much further ahead. And all of us would be safer with less guns.
It is a area you actually can make progress but nobody has tried as hard as they have with more guns everywhere type policy.

News flash, more guns everywhere is making it worse, not better.
Find a way to insure what I mentioned above and I can become a believer.
But No action, just talk is all I see. It gets worse.

When it gets bad enough, they will be coming for all of our guns like you fear in the first place. Something I do not want to see but many are insuring that is the path taken in the end.

It's not the theory I have issue with, it's the effect of the actual practice that is the issue.

Something needs to change, but it's not. just lip service.

well than give everybody a nuke and some antrax and enjoy your life with the risk.

if you die - it was not the one who allowed or did that - it was just the risk you took when you was born.

I don't want guns banned, I want everyone who wants a gun to has to take an 8 to 12 Saturday course and then pass a test. That weeds out the crazies and teaches people so they don't leave loaded guns around the house for their kids to pick up and shoot each other.

I don't need to carry and AR15 to Walmart but what's wrong with me carrying a 38 Special? A nice handgun in a holster isn't going to bother anyone.

But on that note...
There are no laws stopping me from owning a giant aircraft, a steam roller, a train engine, a king cobra, rat poison, an electric chair, pressure cookers, or high nitrate fertilizers.

If I can own all of those things and they've killed people then why can't I own an AR15?


Stop going to coffee shops because you might get cancer from 2nd hand smoke
Stop having sex because you might get AIDS
Stop going out in the street because a car might hurt you.

Life has its risks and the odds are that you're more likely to be struck by lightening than killed in a mass shooting incident.

Just 4 hours of training on a Saturday?

Well that's a step down from what the current requirements on in my neck of North America. Maybe it differs from state to state and province to province.

You and your yellow teeth and horrible breath are in my ignore list. But I'm sure that given your ego that you're clicking the "view post" button.

Honestly someone your age that hasn't learned how to use a tooth brush shouldn't be acting like an expert on any subject. 10 year olds have mastered dental hygiene

I'm not on your side. I'm on the side of the people that used their guns to shoot your people when your people invaded our country.

I'm sure you remember it, you're old enough to have been there.

I would use mixture of triclorolsodium and well I better not say, not giving away my secrets.

guns or balls, you must choose ... :stoned

Well, I'm not reading of mass murder from steam rollers and such. Especially on a near weekly bases.

If you can carry a 38sp in wallmart why not a ar15 ? There are no limits right now. nothing is being done.

Well, when steam rollers become a weapon of choice for mass murder, we will have to do something about that now wouldn't we.

They are even trying to stop those stores from saying they want no guns inside their shops in texas. Isn't that like the government telling you what to do ? Isn't it the same as policies like no shirt no shoes no enter. But it's guns and everyone wants the right to endanger others. Should the holder of the weapon be charged if a crook takes it from him and kills while in public ?

If some of you have it your way there may be coin op vending machines dispensing the dam things on every street.

To people like you, the only crime is any crime committed by "illegal" firearms, which is one of your big fairy tales...like there's some kind of mystical black market factory cranking out guns with the serial numbers erased, ready for use by criminals.

A lot of the criminals lately have been legal gun owners with legal guns, massacring large groups of people including elementary school kids. Those little white kids aren't getting killed by inner-city gang violence.

So I guess it's all about what you consider the definition of crimes. Are mass shootings with legally purchased guns crime in your old, backward-ass eyes?

Why do we need more gun laws when the act of murder is already a crime?

your logic is insane.
what you describe is MY RISK and I HAVE A CHOICE.

what we are discussing here is that SOMEONE ELSE decides that i get cancer, aids or die in a car accident.

my example was the correct one - yours is not.

you give a fuck on your society - you only care your own rights no matter how many people get killed just because this right exists.

this is exactly the problem why so many things goes wrong in your country because people are "national pride" on the constitution but when it comes to the society too many of you give a fuck on other lifes. you don´t care if people have medical care - you don´t care if people are living on the street, you don´t even care when other people get killed by your "wonderful rights".
national pride is just your alibi for being selfish. you have to learn that a society will never work like this.

the problems that are existing in your country you will not resolve with guns.

beside of that your understanding of the second amendment is completely wrong an illogical. give me just ONE example where "THE americans" would fight together against a government - just ONE.
what you are talking about is a civil war and not a self defense.
and in this war it will not be the smarter one that wins - it'll be the one who can shoot better. is this REALLY what you are referring to ?

I am pretty sure that the day will come where all this rightwing hardliners and supremacists think it is now the time to "clean up" THEIR country from all that is not white and not rightwing.
on this day it might even make sense that the others also have weapons with which they can defend themselves.
maybe someone will think afterwards that you could have avoided all this if none of the two parties had weapons but only arguments to get along with each other.

the existence of a brain like yours should be a crime for which you would have to sue nature.

The existence of a brain like yours is a good argument for abortion.

if all those you don´t like would have been aborted you would still live in africa in a cave, mr flintstone.

When the founding Fathers passed the Constitution you were under threat on so many levels. From invasion, Indians and Mexicans who occupied lands you wanted to steal, then the threat of bears, mountain lions, snakes, etc. The main occupation was on the land. You've now stolen that land, have the most powerful armed forces in the world and few work the land and most wildlife is in the wilderness.

Today you have a real problem with the power of guns available to the public. Armour piecing bullets, enlarged magazines, guns far to powerful for a normal parson to own and no restrictions on who owns them. Plus it's a fact that America has an epidemic of people losing control and committing mass killings before committing suicide.

Why don't you want further restrictions on the guns people can own to reduce one specific American problem?

Do you really believe someone who wants to commit suicide is bothered with the law?

Please, I beg you, stop coming up with stupid arguments.

I believe that someone who wants to commit suicide should have every right to do so.

Who are you to tell someone else what to do with their life?