The supremacist was 'mentally disturbed'
View attachment 182700
Of course he was. Are you saying he was not?
The supremacist was 'mentally disturbed'
View attachment 182700
Blood-thinning drugs designed to cut stroke risk may actually increase it
Scientists call for caution in prescribing anticoagulants after some patients with other conditions found to suffer more strokes
Fri 16 Feb 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/science...d-to-cut-stroke-risk-may-actually-increase-it
Actually there is way less deaths by car accidents and drunk driving since we have passed common sense laws to improve safety and crack down on drunk driving. So you’re proving the gun control point.
The second amendment is what it is but in no way does that mean we can’t regulate who has access to guns.
You right wingers cop out on your responsibility toward public safety for no good reason. You guys argue I need a gun in case the government wants to come and get me. That’s stupid. The government will drop a bomb on your head with a flying robot if need be.
The guns in the population aren’t a threat to the government. It’s a stupid argument. And no knives and cars aren’t as lethal as guns, which are designed with one purpose - to kill people.
Absolutely wrong. That is a tard-centric view.
Most lawful gun owners not only accept but expect the government to be using its resources to find and prosecute those who unlawfully possess or use firearms rather than trying to compensate for their lack of action by just taking 2nd amendment rights away from law abiding citizens.
There are multiple reports about how the florida wackjob posted enough information online and around town to be tracked down and interviewed but that the fbi did not go the distance in checking it out. Wouldn't it be great if the FBI were focused on something like that rather than trying to control elections and lock Carter Page up for putting Russian dressing on his salad one time in 2014.
How about the right to defend against home invasion, where the gun owner may have the advantage against even an armed intruder?
If the Government really wanted you, yes, you’re screwed. However, they would need to use the bomb on you are some other costly method. The point is, they would need to use more resources on an armed population rather than an unarmed one. In addition, in a widespread revolt, other countries may come to the rebels aid, as well as some or many law enforcement and even some U.S. millitary could possibly join in on the rebel side. A population being armed makes their job a whole lot easier.
Criminals now have two major things to worry about when committing a crime: cellphones and guns. Taking our guns away makes their job easier. Look at the crime rates in certain Third- World countries that limit guns. It is very high, even though they may have low gun-crime rates.
The second amendment was created by people far wiser than the media talking heads of today. The same media who considers Bruce Jenner as some sort of hero, for example. The same media who appears more concerned about the welfare of other countries than our own. These talking heads also seem to like to stir up discontent. Whether the underlying reason is ratings or more sinister, the negative effects are the same: people are generally fighting against each other, rather than cooperating each other. Whether it is young against old, rich against poor, black against white, man against woman, Liberal against Conservative, Christian against Muslim, and so on.
The media is clearly using the First Amendment to our detriment. However, we dare not limit free speech, right? The same goes for the Second Amendment. This amendment as it is means our enemies can never feel they can do whatever they want, how they want, and when they want without fear that someone may “sincerely disapprove” of their actions.
Who wants to take your guns away? Unless your nuts, have at it.
If you can’t pass a comprehensive background screening should you really have a gun?
Absolute nonsense, Mr. Slartibartfast, like most of what you post. The U.S. Army was founded in June of 1775 and the Second Amendment was adopted in December of 1791, more than 16 years later.The well regulated militia line was before the US Army was created to replace it.
Apparently your limited education excluded the Federalist Papers, Mr. UsualName. You may want to read Federalist No. 46 by James Madison to preclude embarrassing yourself by posting such colossal displays of ignorance in the future. You're welcome in advance.You guys argue I need a gun in case the government wants to come and get me. That’s stupid. The government will drop a bomb on your head with a flying robot if need be.
The guns in the population aren’t a threat to the government. It’s a stupid argument.
4. There’s a lot of people posting on the internet. Should the government track them all down or just those that own guns?
.
Absolute nonsense, Mr. Slartibartfast, like most of what you post. The U.S. Army was founded in June of 1775 and the Second Amendment was adopted in December of 1791, more than 16 years later.