HOME | DD
Reddbecca — Think about it
Published: 2007-04-16 22:15:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 3372; Favourites: 61; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
Doesn't need much explaining, does it?Simple concept. People who are forced to disarm will always be murdered by someone that refuses to comply with the law. The only way to stop the killing is to stop the disarming.
Related content
Comments: 135
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 5
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 3 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Bumper sticker slogans:
"Guns Kill - Shoot Your Gun!"
"They Can Have My Winchester When They Slide It Out Of My Cold-Dead A**h****!"
"If You'd Listen'd To Lyndon LaRouche, You'd Be Alive Today!"
Please visit www.larouchepac.com, and see how an honest-to-God classic American Revolution is being organized.
"If They Can Tear-Down the Berlin Wall..., Then So Can We!"
"Back to the Moon, and Onto Mars and Beyond!" - Lyndon LaRouche
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gun can save life and take it.. it depend who have gun
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Funny that the year before, there was a bill being proposed to allow VT's students to be armed, but was shot down and the failure of it was proudly gloated about.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
You know, this caught my attention because this was my EXACT thought process after this shooting took place. IF there had been armed teachers or students at VT, they could have stopped this, people could have fought back instead of being sitting ducks for this animal.
Same thing went through my mind after all these other mass killings. If SOMEBODY was armed in Aurora, they could have fought back, if Sandy Hook had armed security or teachers with a CCW, they could have saved those kids.
I recently turned 21, and I'm applying for a pistol permit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm not the only one who realizes this?!?!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Disarming US people will lead to an easier martial law accomplishment.
Do not let them take your weapons!!!
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
Adding more guns to an already chaotic situations can indeed help balance things, or it could simply add to the chaos.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe. But what's being tried right now isn't doing a damn bit of good. Time to step back and reevaluate rather than following the proof test of idiocy, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results when no other factors are changed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Amen...like Wayne LaPierre said, the only answer to a bad guy wth a gun is a good guy with a gun.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
agree, gun free zones just set people up to be killed
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Somebody is going to die in a situation that involves use of a deadly weapon. Question is who will be the one that dies; you or the person that has no qualms about murdering you simply because they don't like you?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Here's a concept for you, non-lethal rounds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
non lethal rounds are also more expensive, and many of the ones that are actually effective require larger guns
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh sure it sounds great as a soundbyte answer until you actually stop and think on it. For instance the states with the most restrictive gun laws also prohibit the use and ownership of stuff like pepper spray and stun guns and other non-lethal options.
And then there's non-lethal ammunition, stuff like beanbag rounds for shotguns. That's a seriously legal no-no to commit. If you shoot some asshole with something like a beanbag round then you're going to be facing more serious charges than if you shot them with a regular bullet and killed them. Assault with a deadly weapon is no walk in the park, especially if they wind up dying from internal damage due to a ruptured artery.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
Plus, if I remember right, doesn't non lethal ammo require larger guns, like *gasp* "assault rifles"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A Remington 870 shotgun is bigger and longer than an AR-15. -.-
Only the military and governmental thugs have assault rifles these days...unless you can pay a couple grand to get all the paperwork and only then you can only get guns and parts from before 1986.
less-than-lethal ammunition only goes into particular weapon systems anyway
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Right, that's what I was saying. You can't pick up a colt .45, shove a rubber bullet in it, and not expect it to jam or explode in your face when you try to fire. (I used larger wrong, I meant more powerful/advanced weapons, sorry)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no problem man.
usually there are all sorts of adaptations and addons and modifications to get a thing that does one thing to do another.
if you want y to do x well you need to modify it to do x
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So what, the state WANTS people with guns to kill in supposed self-defense to fill up quotas and jails?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hell if I know I'm just telling you what I was told by various lawyers and self defense experts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well it's stupid if you ask me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You wanna know what's really stupid? You're the victim of a crime, you injure your attacker and they can actually sue you for damages and bring charges against you. They might go to jail but in states without a castle doctrine standard you have to rely on the integrity of the local lawyers and judges to exercise intelligence in the matter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have a brilliant one-step plan for gun control.
Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, and the insane.
Done.
Oh, I forgot the favorite button. That's in the process as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Only question is how to go about doing such in an effective and fair manner?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know. Not selling guns to illegals is step one. Not having illegals which could take guns is step two. Maybe a sanity test requirement would be nice? Perhaps requiring that gun owners take a simple questionnaire regarding gun safety, and maybe taking a short class regarding thus would also help. Felons don't get guns. Violent offenders don't get guns until ten years after their conviction. We're doing a lot of that already, but to a terrible extent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most of these recommendations aren't legally allowable under the constitution. Governmental requirements to fulfill before being allowed to exercise a right is something more akin to a government-allowed privilege, not a constitutional right that the government has to justify restricting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Felons can't vote. Maybe that's unconstitutional since all citizens over 18 have the right to vote.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That was a decision which makes use of due process, something that happens through the courts, not in the office of some pencil pushing little politician who was elected based on how well he can lie and what he told the people they wanted to hear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>