Raw Dawgin' it;1799435 wrote:So you think we should only have the bill of rights and nothing else?

QuakerOats;1799434 wrote:No, I would never do it. Our guns are to prevent government tyranny. And government tyranny has killed far more people in history than anything else.

queencitybuckeye;1799436 wrote:If I get to go last, yes.

SportsAndLady;1799439 wrote:cuckoo cuckoo

QuakerOats;1799438 wrote:I think the federal government's primary function is to defend its people, and I am not sure how they can do that when right now they can't even properly identify and verbalize the enemy and its goals and its methods. Given that, we should arming The People to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom. Instead, we have a Commander-in-Chief that is either completely out to lunch, or really does not care about our country.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799440 wrote:I think it's easy to say until someone shoots your family or friends.

queencitybuckeye;1799445 wrote:So you prefer to have my family no chance of defending ourselves? For what purpose?

Raw Dawgin' it;1799442 wrote:Thanks for not answering. You think all laws written over 200 years ago apply to modern day? There are laws written 5 years ago that probably don't apply today.

QuakerOats;1799447 wrote:I guess you did not understand the answer. You seem to be implying that we should eliminate one of our most basic rights, the right to defend ourselves. I disagree, and tens of millions will not go quietly either in allowing that to happen.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799442 wrote:Thanks for not answering. You think all laws written over 200 years ago apply to modern day? There are laws written 5 years ago that probably don't apply today.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799448 wrote:You can defend yourself without a gun.

Al Bundy;1799449 wrote:Throughout history governments have taken away weapons from people to make the government more powerful and the people weaker. Our founding fathers didn't want to see that happen here.

QuakerOats;1799437 wrote:You have a leading presidential candidate basically saying she would like to do nothing more than that. When the highest ranking government official is espousing such views, The People damn well better be paranoid.

QuakerOats;1799450 wrote:Tell that to the hundreds of millions who were slaughtered or otherwise victimized by government tyranny.

QuakerOats;1799454 wrote:PS --- continuing to deflect the debate away from the core of the issue in order to focus on gun control is typical modus operundi for the Left. When will they ever cut to the chase and tell The People that we are in a war and we all better pull together to win the war. It is truly disgusting how they continue to fraudulently frame these situations, and the current state of war.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799446 wrote:Odds are if you were in that night club 1) you would've ran and not pulled you gun and 2) if you did pull your gun you probably would've missed and killed/shot someone other than the gunman. I doubt you've ever shot your gun without ear protection, in a dark building, with people panicking, and been able to be calm and accurate.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799455 wrote:Does that tin foil hat help your internet connection?

queencitybuckeye;1799456 wrote:Words have meaning. "Probably" means more likely than not. That would mean you're claiming that when someone fires a gun in self-defense, more than half the time they shoot an innocent party. It's nonsense.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799455 wrote:Does that tin foil hat help your internet connection?

Raw Dawgin' it;1799459 wrote:Have you ever shot a person? How about a moving person, in the dark, in a crowded night club.

queencitybuckeye;1799461 wrote:Nope. Neither had the killer. Why do you think it's out of the realm of possibility that a good guy could?

QuakerOats;1799460 wrote:You lost the argument; in fact, you really have no argument or even common sense. I wish it were otherwise.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799442 wrote:Thanks for not answering. You think all laws written over 200 years ago apply to modern day? There are laws written 5 years ago that probably don't apply today.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799464 wrote:The killer shot into a large group of unarmed and unsuspecting people. You would've been shooting at 1 person who is shooting back at you. I'm glad you think you'd be the hero in that situation. I'm sure the cops there could've learned something from you.