Do you really not know that quote?
Do you really not know that quote?
Of course I know the quote-it might be the most famous single quote from a supreme court justice ever-but it has zero relevance to your attempt to anger the sheep about certain firearms by trying to demonize those guns with a silly, irrelevant and meaningless term
Logical fallacy on your part, applying something with easily defined objective rules wouldn't need Potter's subjective judgment. So you punted and appealed to authority when your appeal to emotion OP failed.
Learn to ****ing make a logical argument.
That's the stupidest post yet in this thread.
I didn't "punt." I cracked a joke that the usual suspected people failed to get.
Nah, you tried to make a point, failed again and are now trying to play it off as a joke. Try not to fail so badly when making a point.
That's the stupidest post yet in this thread.
I didn't "punt" or "appeal to authority." I cracked a joke that the usual suspected people failed to get. I don't have to explain why.
Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house? No doubt you've at least got fire insurance, most people do. There is nothing wrong with being prepared for a house fire and by the same token there is nothing wrong with being prepared for a home invader. The fact of the matter is you're three times as likely to have your home invaded than you are of having a house fire.
There is nothing wrong with playing with guns as long as you play safely.
As for the gunman in the article, there are sick people in this world, your point?
So are you saying civilians shouldn't have access to a Sig Sauer XM17 9mm handgun? That is the standard sidearm of army officers so you can say its "military grade." Should a civilian be able to buy a Ontario MK 3 Navy Knife? It is a knife used by Navy SEALS so you can say its "military grade." And what is wrong with owning body armor? You certainly can't shoot and kill somebody with body armor. As for camo, are you now saying that clothing should be regulated? People shouldn't be able to buy certain clothes because of its color? That's absurd.
See what I mean? Completely incapable of making a logical point.See what I mean?
See what I mean? Completely incapable of making a logical point.
Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Haven't you been aroubd long enough to realise smears and trolling responses are all you get out of someone?
I get having a gun to defend loved ones and your home from ghastly intruders, even though the odds of that ever happening, for most of us, are slim to none. I certainly get being a female and carrying a gun to defend against sexual assault, a far more likely event. And, I guess, I can almost understand why a grown man needs to play with guns, like a kid playing cowboys and Indians. But, this....
Sorry, but there should be no right for civilians to have military grade weapons, body armor and camo. None.
Sorry, but there should be no right for civilians to have military grade weapons, body armor and camo. None.
Says you!
It was the hand gun that held the record for the most deaths(Virginia tech) until the summer of 2016
That evil Ak-47 came out during WWII was it?
Of course, says me. No one else matters.
It was the hand gun that held the record for the most deaths(Virginia tech) until the summer of 2016
That evil Ak-47 came out during WWII was it?
Good, then quit pretending you never heard it before.
Count your blessings for not being sucked down the rabit hole.Calamity keeps dodging my post, questions, and points.
Thanks for being so up-front and honest about yours and the left wing's true intentions; all the way down to banning camo clothing. Always good to know the enemies true intentions.
I think the purpose of the comment is more to stir crap up than to state a position that is honestly held.
I get having a gun to defend loved ones and your home from ghastly intruders, even though the odds of that ever happening, for most of us, are slim to none. I certainly get being a female and carrying a gun to defend against sexual assault, a far more likely event. And, I guess, I can almost understand why a grown man needs to play with guns, like a kid playing cowboys and Indians. But, this....
Sorry, but there should be no right for civilians to have military grade weapons, body armor and camo. None.
The 2A doesn't provide guns for personal defense. I'm not saying you can't defend yourself with a gun, and I'm not saying there isn't a right to defend yourself, I'm saying it doesn't come from the Second Amendment.
Sorry, but there should be no right for civilians to have military grade weapons, body armor and camo. None.
Many hunters put on camo every hunting season. Is this a problem?
The Mossburg 500 is a military-grade weapon. Yet, many people own such a firearm. It is a general-purpose pump shotgun. What is your reason for denying people of the ability to possess such weapons?
Your entire posting history is 1st Amendment run Amok. Now we have the 2nd running Amok. Got anything on the 3rd?I get having a gun to defend loved ones and your home from ghastly intruders, even though the odds of that ever happening, for most of us, are slim to none. I certainly get being a female and carrying a gun to defend against sexual assault, a far more likely event. And, I guess, I can almost understand why a grown man needs to play with guns, like a kid playing cowboys and Indians. But, this....
Sorry, but there should be no right for civilians to have military grade weapons, body armor and camo. None.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?