|
History
On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote:
On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this |
History
On 11/04/2018 20:49, ZZyXX wrote:
On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this +1 -- Bod |
History
On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. -- dvus |
History
On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote:
On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts as loud as they can |
History
On 4/11/18 1:38 PM, BurfordTJustice wrote:
So we have here two big mouth nanus bodies that failed search engine 101... Figures...bod needs to go rent some pussy under 29 stone to relive the tension. "Bod" wrote in message ... : On 11/04/2018 20:49, ZZyXX wrote: : On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: : On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: : On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: : wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related : crimes? : : Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do : it. : Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with : your : silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very : people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your : intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots : so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. : : okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens : : Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming : about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even : exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are : ignored. : : if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those : numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can : shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this : : +1 : : -- : Bod the only thing you know about pussy is what your mother gives you |
History
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:49:01 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this They do https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen |
History
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:18:47 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote: On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" English isn't your first language, either, is it? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Now, will you admit *publicly* that you're wrong? No, I suppose not. Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts as loud as they can You just don't listen. Big surprise to everyone here, I'm sure. |
History
On 4/12/2018 3:18 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" The "regulations" are the legally enacted laws of the USA. You can obtain a copy in any Law Library. Please don't ask me to do your homework. Â*Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts as loud as they can Read the magazine they publish. There's scads of instances where legally armed people have stopped crimes. The MSM mostly ignores these actions since they don't fit their socialist narrative. A small sample of such incidents can be found he https://www.washingtontimes.com/mult...d-bad-guy-gun/ You likely didn't hear about these since the media pretty much ignored them in favor of stories where there wasn't an armed citizen around and the evil-doers had an easy time of it. Many of these crimes happened in so called "gun free" zones where the criminals knew no one would be armed. Note that those wonderful laws had no effect on the bad guys, just on law-abiding citizens who were prevented from carrying the wherewithal to stop the killing. Of course if the criminals knew that some of the public might be armed they likely would have chosen a different place that was designated "gun free" to commit their heinous actions. -- dvus |
History
On 4/12/18 7:53 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:18:47 -0700, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" English isn't your first language, either, is it? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Now, will you admit *publicly* that you're wrong? No, I suppose not. I still don't see any regulations regarding the "unorganized militia" Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts as loud as they can You just don't listen. Big surprise to everyone here, I'm sure. |
History
On 4/13/18 6:38 AM, dvus wrote:
On 4/12/2018 3:18 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" The "regulations" are the legally enacted laws of the USA. You can obtain a copy in any Law Library. Please don't ask me to do your homework. seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight their fellow citizens Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts as loud as they can Read the magazine they publish. There's scads of instances where legally armed people have stopped crimes. The MSM mostly ignores these actions since they don't fit their socialist narrative. A small sample of such incidents can be found he https://www.washingtontimes.com/mult...d-bad-guy-gun/ You likely didn't hear about these since the media pretty much ignored them in favor of stories where there wasn't an armed citizen around and the evil-doers had an easy time of it. Many of these crimes happened in so called "gun free" zones where the criminals knew no one would be armed. Note that those wonderful laws had no effect on the bad guys, just on law-abiding citizens who were prevented from carrying the wherewithal to stop the killing. Of course if the criminals knew that some of the public might be armed they likely would have chosen a different place that was designated "gun free" to commit their heinous actions. |
History
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:16:32 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote: I still don't see any regulations regarding the "unorganized militia" This is all bull**** anyway. If we twisted the 2d amendment in the direction of more rights the way we do the first all we would see is the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You have no problem ignoring "Congress shall make no law" completely and you think "Establishment" is the same as toleration but one amendment later you are parsing every word and every comma. |
History
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 19:56:58 -0700, % wrote:
On 2018-04-12 7:53 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:18:47 -0700, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" English isn't your first language, either, is it? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Now, will you admit *publicly* that you're wrong? No, I suppose not. Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts as loud as they can You just don't listen. Big surprise to everyone here, I'm sure. its fun not listening to you almost as much fun as lying to you is It's good to see you admit what has been obvious to most of us. |
History
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:16:32 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote: On 4/12/18 7:53 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:18:47 -0700, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" English isn't your first language, either, is it? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Now, will you admit *publicly* that you're wrong? No, I suppose not. I still don't see any regulations regarding the "unorganized militia" I see you're a liar like % |
History
On 4/13/2018 9:27 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
On 4/13/18 6:38 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/12/2018 3:18 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related crimes? Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it. Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with your silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the very people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's your intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their plots so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding citizens Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are ignored. if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about this The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a guaranteed Constitutional right. the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" The "regulations" are the legally enacted laws of the USA. You can obtain a copy in any Law Library. Please don't ask me to do your homework. seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight their fellow citizens It's only strange to snowflakes. Â* Even if no one ever stops a crime due to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he knows nearby citizens may be armed. and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts as loud as they can Read the magazine they publish. There's scads of instances where legally armed people have stopped crimes. The MSM mostly ignores these actions since they don't fit their socialist narrative. A small sample of such incidents can be found he https://www.washingtontimes.com/mult...d-bad-guy-gun/ You likely didn't hear about these since the media pretty much ignored them in favor of stories where there wasn't an armed citizen around and the evil-doers had an easy time of it. Many of these crimes happened in so called "gun free" zones where the criminals knew no one would be armed. Note that those wonderful laws had no effect on the bad guys, just on law-abiding citizens who were prevented from carrying the wherewithal to stop the killing. Of course if the criminals knew that some of the public might be armed they likely would have chosen a different place that was designated "gun free" to commit their heinous actions. -- dvus |
History
On 4/14/18 4:05 AM, BurfordTJustice wrote:
You clearly are a clueless little Butch queen.....LOL Are you Maxine's child....LMAO!!!!!! "ZZyXX" wrote in message ... : On 4/13/18 6:38 AM, dvus wrote: : On 4/12/2018 3:18 PM, ZZyXX wrote: : On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: : On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: : On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: : On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: : On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: : wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun : related : crimes? : : Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to : do it. : Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with : your : silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the : very : people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's : your : intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their : plots : so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. : : okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding : citizens : : Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of : screaming : about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even : exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so : are : ignored. : : if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those : numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can : shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about : this : : The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a : guaranteed Constitutional right. : : the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm : still waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" : : The "regulations" are the legally enacted laws of the USA. You can : obtain a copy in any Law Library. Please don't ask me to do your homework. : : seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and : draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right : to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight : their fellow citizens : : : Even if no one ever stops a crime due : to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact : that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he : knows nearby citizens may be armed. : : and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts : as loud as they can : : Read the magazine they publish. There's scads of instances where legally : armed people have stopped crimes. The MSM mostly ignores these actions : since they don't fit their socialist narrative. A small sample of such : incidents can be found he : https://www.washingtontimes.com/mult...d-bad-guy-gun/ : : : You likely didn't hear about these since the media pretty much ignored : them in favor of stories where there wasn't an armed citizen around and : the evil-doers had an easy time of it. Many of these crimes happened in : so called "gun free" zones where the criminals knew no one would be : armed. Note that those wonderful laws had no effect on the bad guys, : just on law-abiding citizens who were prevented from carrying the : wherewithal to stop the killing. Of course if the criminals knew that : some of the public might be armed they likely would have chosen a : different place that was designated "gun free" to commit their heinous : actions. : : as I continually point out to you, I am not a member of your family |
History
On 4/14/18 7:40 AM, dvus wrote:
seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight their fellow citizens It's only strange to snowflakes. Indeed, I am unique and beautiful |
History
On 4/14/18 4:04 AM, BurfordTJustice wrote:
You are still little Butch Queen Weak....LOL "ZZyXX" wrote in message ... : On 4/12/18 7:53 PM, wrote: : On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:18:47 -0700, ZZyXX : wrote: : : On 4/12/18 6:20 AM, dvus wrote: : On 4/11/2018 3:49 PM, ZZyXX wrote: : On 4/11/18 2:43 AM, dvus wrote: : On 4/10/2018 3:19 PM, ZZyXX wrote: : On 4/10/18 4:53 AM, dvus wrote: : wouldn't it be a better reality to find a way to prevent gun related : crimes? : : Yes, but attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens isn't going to : do it. : Can't you get it through your head that criminals don't comply with : your : silly regulations? All you can hope to accomplish is disarming the : very : people who might stop an armed evil-doer. It's almost as if that's : your : intention, to make it easier for mass shooters to carry out their : plots : so you can point to them as a reason to confiscate our weapons. : : okay, so how many crimes have been stopped by armed law-abiding : citizens : : Who knows? The media shies away from such stories in favor of screaming : about mass shootings with "assault weapons" that don't actually even : exist. Armed citizens who stop crimes don't fit their agenda and so are : ignored. : : if it's the centerpiece of why people have guns for protection, those : numbers should be readily available and shouted as loud as NRA can : shout. the fact that this isn't happening should make you wonder about : this : : The "centerpiece of why people have guns for protection" is that it is a : guaranteed Constitutional right. : : the second amendment only mentions "a well regulated militia". I'm still : waiting for you to provide a copy of those "regulations" : : English isn't your first language, either, is it? : : https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 : : Now, will you admit *publicly* that you're wrong? No, I suppose not. : : I still don't see any regulations regarding the "unorganized militia" : : : : : Even if no one ever stops a crime due : to being armed that right still exists. You also must consider the fact : that a criminal is less likely to commit crimes in an area where he : knows nearby citizens may be armed. : : and once again if that is true, the NRA should be shouting those facts : as loud as they can : : You just don't listen. Big surprise to everyone here, I'm sure. : : so you are big butch queen strong? |
History
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:38:00 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote: On 4/14/18 7:40 AM, dvus wrote: seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight their fellow citizens It's only strange to snowflakes. Indeed, I am unique and beautiful And melt the instant anyone turns up the heat. |
History
On 4/14/2018 2:38 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
On 4/14/18 7:40 AM, dvus wrote: seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight their fellow citizens It's only strange to snowflakes. Indeed, I am unique and beautiful ....and with all the brains of a snowflake! -- dvus |
History
|
History
|
History
On 4/15/18 4:36 AM, dvus wrote:
On 4/14/2018 8:14 PM, wrote: On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:38:00 -0700, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/14/18 7:40 AM, dvus wrote: seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight their fellow citizens It's only strange to snowflakes. Indeed, I am unique and beautiful And melt the instant anyone turns up the heat. Heh..., wish I'd said that! you're just not that smart |
History
On 4/15/18 4:35 AM, dvus wrote:
On 4/14/2018 2:38 PM, ZZyXX wrote: On 4/14/18 7:40 AM, dvus wrote: seems strange that there was a time when there were draft boards and draft resisters when apparently the gov't has always had the legal right to take any male between the ages of 17 and 45 and require them to fight their fellow citizens It's only strange to snowflakes. Indeed, I am unique and beautiful ...and with all the brains of a snowflake! without snowflakes, you would just be a desiccated husk of waste material...oh wait, you're a conservative so that's already happened |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter