Im not part of the NRA what on earth are you talking about. And when did I advocate for more guns? Btw YOU brought up guns in this thread. Seriously whose the fanatic Allie? Smh
At a Senate hearing in January, LaPierre opposed expanding background checks by arguing it was a futile effort. “And when it comes to background checks, let’s be honest, background checks will never be universal because criminals will never submit to them,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. So you can't agree to this? And is it because they have mental illness or because they are criminals? Which is it Lapierre?
I brought it up to show the asinine stance on trying to regulate a woman's body but NOT a deadly weapon. You are the one who went off on the it's useless to try path.
i just skimmed over this post (working out at the moment) and already it looks batshit weird criminals wont submit to background checks..so..theyll have one way of obtaining firearms shut off to them whats wrong with that?
Ok...lets talk about drugs. Pot, which I rarely smoke is on record for killing 50, 25, 0 people every year. Alcohol, otoh is responsible for killing how many people a year? Or meth? Or prescription drugs? Where would you like to end THIS particular argument?
considering drug dealers DO kill people, both innocent and 'in the game' each year..............just by buying illegal narcotics you're contributing to yearly deaths because you keep those fools employed and on the corners
If you don't submit to a check, then you don't get the gun? What's wrong with that? That's why you make it mandatory. And you know as well as I do that, for instance, that NOT being a criminal in a background check does not preclude a person from NOT committing a crime with a gun. But at least a background check might catch something, anything. What about the woman who was going through the divorce with her batshit insane husband? She filed for and received a TRO on him based on the FACT that he had guns and was threatening to kill her with them. 6 hours after the TRO was granted he ambushed her, with guns in hand, in front of their kids and ordered her into a car. Where he shot her multiple times. At what level did our comprehensive gun "laws" help this woman when she needed it? Certainly not at the level where a fucking amendment written 200 years ago and abused to the nth degree today is held as more sacred than a woman with 3 kids to raise and an apparently batshit insane husband. Who had guns.
Ummm how about lets say illegal drugs like crack and heroine kill more people directly and indirectly than guns and we have an out right ban on them. Cant believe you used weed as anargument. There are more guns strangling and stabbing their spouses than shooting them. If you dont want a gun dont buy one and stay away from those who have them. Easy peasy problem solved
better question..WHY do they kill people because you people keep them in business and keep that money looking nice, so they kill each other to get it but ya they use guns..so wat.. if guns weren't around, they'd still kill each other for profit wake up and smell the jesus juice
no idea what's going on..but i can say id have no problem with weed if it didnt lead to thugged out drug dealers sitting on my corner u can resume ur normally scheduled foreplay now
Guns are the problem dammit not the reason why people use guns. Dont you know before guns there wasnt a single person murdered. We lived in harmony. No stabbings stoning no stranglings just people holding hands and skipping motherfucka
no..that cant be right..im sure they went to their license firearms dealer and got their shit legit....
three words.... I E D works for the jihad..will definitely work for any dealer with at least a 3rd grade education
Right before arts and crafts at the community center and after choir practice at the church. Criminals are saints who follow the law
I wanna say....uhhhhh....money? They kill them because they owe them money? Where's my cookie? Btw, you can keep your Jesus juice. Because, like, ew and stuff.