Prototypical mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging cowardly gun humping ammosexual

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Yes indeedy

I don't own a gun but, as soon as I can afford the arm lengthing surgery, I'll be saving up for a full-auto .50 cal high-powered assault rifle so I can shoot down commercial airliners and knock baby birds out their nest.

Don't worry about me. I'll get a silencer so no one will even hear the shot. x2


PSA: Violence is a serious problem. Blaming guns for the problem simply because the criminals and crazies aren't crazy enough to use a Vulcan mind-meld deathray to kill people is such a waste.


>> Dr. Arthur Kellerman, stated: “If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah.” (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)

I'm not a libertarian. I favor fully sponsored and paid government provided medical care for every person on US soil. I like the idea of paying for the health and welfare of people more than I like financing hundreds of military bases.

The 2 basic political equations in US politics that need to be held under a microscope: "fear = money" and "an enemy = unity".

Having said that and pointing out that even a broken clock is right twice a day, have a read:
http://www.paulhager.org/why001.htm
Excerpt from Paul Hagar's site---
"My attitudes about guns remained in about the same place through the 1970s. They began to change somewhat beginning in the early 1980s as a result of two world events. Those two events were the Vietnam War and the Afghan War. One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity.

I began to consider the possibility that since the consequences of a government going bad were so severe, even if there were a social cost to citizens having guns, that cost would be offset by forestalling a despotism from coming to power. I was more willing to entertain the possibility of a tyrannical U.S. government after Reagan was elected. I saw the Reagan Administration exacerbating a number of anti-freedom trends as well as starting several new ones. Projecting those trends into the future and applying my usual pessimism made me consider that the option of having a gun at some point might not be such a bad idea after all."

Tell me this isn't worth reading and considering with what we now have in office running the federal government. All sarcasm and kidding aside, the free exchange of ideas is the cornerstone of our republic. Thank you for sharing, even if you disagree.