Perfect Answer to Gun Control Idiots
- Thread starter RDJ
- Start date
I love it, have it in my mind this guy is a sleazy underworld attorney like Saul from Breaking Bad/Call Saul.
Last edited:
Bullshit. Quit drinking the liberal ass water and do some research. The idiots that came up with that are twisting meaning to come up with that to scare the pants off the special snowflakes to keep them in line
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2017
- Messages
- 47
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2017
- Messages
- 47
I honestly believe if done the correct way, drugs being legal would make everybody a lot happier with there lives considering how hard it is these days just to keep your head above water most weeks. It would take the edge off of hard lives. Again if done correctly. And in the end, whether it be guns, drugs or cars those objects aren't the problem, people are.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Post list of all 273 please
Thats nice...
Not to derail the thread too much but I would have to disagree that cat ownership would fall under the the 5th amendment. If that's the case, then no pet ownership could be banned (which of course isn't the case).
Can you post the FBI’s definition and a source for that statistic? Honestly, I don’t agree with the definition either but haven’t found anything to the contrary. What I did find was their definition of mass murder, which seems to be the basis of the 273 statistic.
See above. I’m far from liberal, and I’m curious how that 1 post would lead you to that. I own several rifles/pistols/etc, am a middle aged white male, and have been in the Army for 15 years without deserting. Pretty much disqualifies me lol. I think a quick review of other posts would show that as well.
When you post liberal propaganda with little to no or very sloppy research you pretty much scream "I AM A LIBERAL". The liberals love to take the most bizarre definition and run with it because it makes for a bigger number. I don't know what you searched on but my simple search this on the first page
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/mass-shootings-definition-total-count-2017-12246429.php
You can argue all day long over the definition because a lot of what is counted is gang violence and other shit. Yet in the same breath these asshat scream that they are mostly committed by white males which goes to show they have narrowed their definition to fit their desired outcome.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/mass-shootings-definition-total-count-2017-12246429.php
You can argue all day long over the definition because a lot of what is counted is gang violence and other shit. Yet in the same breath these asshat scream that they are mostly committed by white males which goes to show they have narrowed their definition to fit their desired outcome.
Turn off the ****ing TV. Jesus H Christ. Watching the news is as valid as watching IG, Facebook, YouTube and 4Chan these days.
You have put ZERO effort into finding out any of this information for your self.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
It’s the first link in Google!!!!
And the third link it brings up, it shows how the Media and Activists Blogs come up with their bullshit 1-mass shooting per day number.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/03/choose-your-own-mass-shooting-statistics
They did in California with the ammo restrictions.
First off, relax. You’re getting pretty worked up by someone you don’t even know, on the internet. Drink a beer, **** your wife, go to the range, whatever you normally do.
2) I’m in Iraq, so I don’t have regular access to TV.
3) The very image you posted clearly states “this is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings”, which the article goes on to say “but rather a study of a specifc type of shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face.” Seems to be pretty clear that not only is this not the definition of a mass shooting, as you’re trying to use it, but mass shootings aren’t the focus of the study at all. Yet here you are, getting worked up about research. ESPECIALLY considering the fact that your “research” seems to contradict your first statement of “2-5 shootings per year”.
I have already stated that I don’t like the definition, and was surprised and researched quite a bit when I first heard it. Everything I’ve found, through admittedly limited time researching, seems to point to the lack of any official definition.
...who is spreading miss information and propaganda that will help the opposition strip Americans of our Freedoms
Well we had the guy in Oregon that shot up his work place. Some guy in Norfolk shooting up his workplace and now this.
I’ve stated for years we get 2-5 of these big media “OMFG” crisis shootings a year. San Bredino , Orlando, Sandy Hook, Colorado, Senator Gilford, Columbine, Waco.... oh wait, that was the ATF.
point is, no matter what we do, liberals will always be grabbing for our guns. And the only thing we can do is reach out to our legislators. Each year another state falls to the demoralization of liberal jurisdiction. And if we succumb to this nonsense, we will all end up like the UK or Australia.... which means complete gun bans. Keep fighting, or give in to the government bullshit. It's what they WANT.
Users who are viewing this thread
