Raw Dawgin' it;1799466 wrote:I'm gonna guess you're a doomsday prepper too.

Swing and a miss ...................................... again

Just an aside ........

London muslim mayor now banning certain advertising (which obviously conflicts with his religious beliefs)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/londons-muslim-mayor-bans-sexy-women-in-advertisements/

queencitybuckeye;1799471 wrote:That you act as if I'm playing Johnny Badass is a strawman of your creation. All I've ever said is someone with the means to defend themselves has a higher chance of survival than someone who does not.

Your best chance for survival in situations like this are to not shoot back. They're to run.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799429 wrote:If people giving up their guns meant less people dying, you wouldn't do it?

I'm not convinced giving up my guns makes anyone safer.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799429 wrote: You think once a law or bill is put into place you can never change it?

Absolutely laws can be changed. Gun control proponents are happy to chip away at our rights until they are gone, which is why I think it's important to push back. They say they want common sense compromise but I don't believe them. And soon I'm convinced they will be able to nominate supreme court justices and there will be nothing left to do about it.

QuakerOats;1799477 wrote:Just an aside ........

London muslim mayor now banning certain advertising (which obviously conflicts with his religious beliefs)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/londons-muslim-mayor-bans-sexy-women-in-advertisements/

Lol, did you actually read the article? Or did you just see something about a Muslim mayor?

He's doing the same thing that millions of feminists have been doing for the past decade. It's a completely separate issue.

1. I am for 2nd Amendment because it is a right. I do not own a gun because that is my choice. Should there be rules about who owns a gun, yes. Will a new law stop shootings? No.

2. As much as I dislike Obama because of his policies, this idea that Trump is throwing around that he is a secret Muslim is ludicrous. This guy has ordered drone strikes and dropped bombs killing more Muslims including women and children than you will ever hope to.

3.Reports are out now that he apparently was a self loathing closeted Gay man. Indoctrinated by his father and religion that being Gay was wrong.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Raw Dawgin' it;1799429 wrote:If people giving up their guns meant less people dying, you wouldn't do it?

No. This is common sense. IF a president ever tried to take guns, only law abiding people would turn them in. Then only criminals would have guns. How stupid would that be?

FatHobbit;1799488 wrote:I'm not convinced giving up my guns makes anyone safer.



Absolutely laws can be changed. Gun control proponents are happy to chip away at our rights until they are gone, which is why I think it's important to push back. They say they want common sense compromise but I don't believe them. And soon I'm convinced they will be able to nominate supreme court justices and there will be nothing left to do about it.

Exactly why i said after they ban semi autos and realize hand guns commit the majority of all gun crimes (that includes mass shootings) they will then go after hand guns.

It's really no different than pushing Obamacare down our throats and saying "oops lol, we should be doing single payer anyway!"

Least this POS waited more than 24 hours amirite?

http://www.wsmv.com/story/32212030/tn-state-rep-to-give-away-assault-style-rifles-at-fundraiser

Raw Dawgin' it;1799411 wrote:So you'd rather keep your guns and have there be tons of gun violence and people dying everyday, good to know. Do you still believe women and black shouldn't vote? Maybe black people should go back to using their own water fountains and bathrooms. When laws are out dated, they are changed. Why are some bills ok to amend and other aren't?

Law biding citizen giving up their weapons will not reduce the gun violence of criminals, crazy and terroist. So what would be the point of such action by the government but to have more control over the citizens. No thanks..
Ill keep my weapons, freedoms and rights. Women and Blacks should alway have the same rights as any other non felon responsible, legal citizen.
I shared my canteen with many of my Black friends in the jungles of Vietnam, live it the Projects and drink from the same garden hose during the Civil rights movement, stood in the same line to get welfare peanut butter and cheese ... Mofo
There are some amendments that are the foundation of freedom that should never be questioned.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799480 wrote:Your best chance for survival in situations like this are to not shoot back. They're to run.

I believe I've posted that at least once. Run. Hide. Fight. In that order. Fighting as a last resort is better than having no last resort, even if the odds are against you.

Belly35;1799516 wrote:Law biding citizen giving up their weapons will not reduce the gun violence of criminals, crazy and terroist. So what would be the point of such action by the government but to have more control over the citizens. No thanks..
Ill keep my weapons, freedoms and rights. Women and Blacks should alway have the same rights as any other non felon responsible, legal citizen.
I shared my canteen with many of my Black friends in the jungles of Vietnam, live it the Projects and drink from the same garden hose during the Civil rights movement, stood in the same line to get welfare peanut butter and cheese ... Mofo
There are some amendments that are the foundation of freedom that should never be questioned.

Which ones? I believe women and blacks shouldn't have the same rights as me, I believe that giving them rights was against the foundation of freedom and should never have been changed. You agree that those amendments needed to be written, but the second one might be written to take away your gun hobby you flip your shit.

No amendments can't be questioned. If enough people believe one or any of them should be changed or eliminated, there's a process for that.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799522 wrote:Which ones? I believe women and blacks shouldn't have the same rights as me, I believe that giving them rights was against the foundation of freedom and should never have been changed. You agree that those amendments needed to be written, but the second one might be written to take away your gun hobby you flip your shit.

Maybe you should tell us then, what defense shall stand between The People and a tyrannical government? As of now, we have the Bill of Rights.

raiderbuck;1799489 wrote:Lol, did you actually read the article? Or did you just see something about a Muslim mayor?

He's doing the same thing that millions of feminists have been doing for the past decade. It's a completely separate issue.

For God's sake, he sure as hell is not doing it because he sides with feminism. Hell his religion stones women to death for looking sideways at someone. Get in the game.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799411 wrote:So you'd rather keep your guns and have there be tons of gun violence and people dying everyday, good to know. Do you still believe women and black shouldn't vote? Maybe black people should go back to using their own water fountains and bathrooms. When laws are out dated, they are changed. Why are some bills ok to amend and other aren't?

Arguments like this really irritate me because it's a failure on the part of our education system, and it has become so rampant that even the educators are ignorant.

The Constitution is not law. The Constitution is the foundation upon which all laws are based and are tested against. The Constitution is a promise to ourselves and is based on TIMELESS ideas of man's natural rights, liberties, and human nature. The restriction of blacks and women to vote was struck down upon the tenets of the Constitution and made illegal laws that denied these natural rights to those people.

The 2nd amendment, on the other hand, is not "a law that is outdated", it is a SPECIFIED RIGHT that harkens back to man's natural right to defend himself ...a right that is based on human nature and hence, is timeless. While technology may change and pubic opinion can change, human nature does not change.

QuakerOats;1799526 wrote:For God's sake, he sure as hell is not doing it because he sides with feminism. Hell his religion stones women to death for looking sideways at someone. Get in the game.

His religious beliefs allow him to vote for same-sex marriages too?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/06/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-muslim/84016822/

And what "game" are you pertaining to?

QuakerOats;1799526 wrote:For God's sake, he sure as hell is not doing it because he sides with feminism. Hell his religion stones women to death for looking sideways at someone. Get in the game.

Yeah, cause he reps. all Muslims worldwide.
GTFO with that BS.
What a narrow small, and totally ignorant point of view.
You are really a joke on here.

How many people you think are armed in a texas wal-mart? Yet the cops were the ones to shoot him.

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/amarillo-texas-police-on-scene-of-active-shooting-possible-hostage-situation

raiderbuck;1799528 wrote:His religious beliefs allow him to vote for same-sex marriages too?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/06/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-muslim/84016822/

And what "game" are you pertaining to?

Apparently, the game where you label every single person who follows a particular faith as an extremist because their faith is different from yours. Regardless of how stupid this makes you look to anyone with any amount of actual knowledge about anything.

Raw Dawgin' it;1799530 wrote:How many people you think are armed in a texas wal-mart?

No idea. Perhaps they did exactly what we agreed was smart, run or hide? Why the implication that everyone who carries a gun is itching to be involved in a shootout?

queencitybuckeye;1799532 wrote:No idea. Perhaps they did exactly what we agreed was smart, run or hide? Why the implication that everyone who carries a gun is itching to be involved in a shootout?

Possibly, his main vibe about gun-carriers is generated solely from reading Belly's posts. Going off that (very) small sample size would lead to that sort of feeling.

Heretic;1799531 wrote:Apparently, the game where you label every single person who follows a particular faith as an extremist because their faith is different from yours. Regardless of how stupid this makes you look to anyone with any amount of actual knowledge about anything.

Again you are completely off base. First, I did not label anyone, much less "every single person who follows a particular faith as an extremist". Second, I pointed out that the muslim mayor of London was banning advertising (that many/most westerners would not object to) obviously because of his religious beliefs. Many on here, including you, abhor a politician inflicting his religious views upon the governed, so it was worth mentioning.

Unfortunately you are so quick to pounce you completely miss the point, not to mention the facts. Amazing.

QuakerOats;1799535 wrote:Again you are completely off base. First, I did not label anyone, much less "every single person who follows a particular faith as an extremist". Second, I pointed out that the muslim mayor of London was banning advertising (that many/most westerners would not object to) obviously because of his religious beliefs. Many on here, including you, abhor a politician inflicting his religious views upon the governed, so it was worth mentioning.

Unfortunately you are so quick to pounce you completely miss the point, not to mention the facts. Amazing.

Good Lord, you are freaking assuming. You have no evidence to back up your insane claim. You are just talking out your ass as you usually do to fit your narrow point of view.

FatHobbit;1799350 wrote:
Hillary has said she would like to see Australian style gun control. Guess what they did in Australia?

They paid everyone for their weapons, also impossible here.