She spews racist hate all the being willfully ignorant about black on black crime and the actual issues impacting black people...

She gets shot at a party at 3am, her supporters and leftists worldwide attempted to pin this on some invisible assassin boogeyman who did this because of her "anti- racist" beliefs.

Oh but no, she was shot by a group of black men.

I hope this young lady fully recovers from this and has a literal awakening to what she believes vs what is reality.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/139...65346?s=19



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

Just like Chicago.

(05-25-2021 08:22 AM)maximus Wrote:  She spews racist hate all the being willfully ignorant about black on black crime and the actual issues impacting black people...

She gets shot at a party at 3am, her supporters and leftists worldwide attempted to pin this on some invisible assassin boogeyman who did this because of her "anti- racist" beliefs.

Oh but no, she was shot by a group of black men.

I hope this young lady fully recovers from this and has a literal awakening to what she believes vs what is reality.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/139...65346?s=19



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Say her name.

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then what purpose do they serve?

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then what purpose do they serve?

Apart from restricting the rights of lawful gun owners, none. But that defies the narrative. Just ask his sweetheart up in Chitcago, Mayor Beetlejuice.

(05-25-2021 08:28 AM)No Bull Wrote:  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Yep. Sleep with dogs and you get fleas.

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then what purpose do they serve?

The purpose of any law is to discourage or regulate certain behaviors.

No law is ever followed 100% of the time however.

By your logic, why punish anyone for murder since it clearly still happens.

(05-25-2021 01:41 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then what purpose do they serve?

The purpose of any law is to discourage or regulate certain behaviors.

No law is ever followed 100% of the time however.

By your logic, why punish anyone for murder since it clearly still happens.

Murdering someone isnt a right litebrite

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(05-25-2021 01:55 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 01:41 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then what purpose do they serve?

The purpose of any law is to discourage or regulate certain behaviors.

No law is ever followed 100% of the time however.

By your logic, why punish anyone for murder since it clearly still happens.

Murdering someone isnt a right litebrite

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

That's not the point.

The point was that if gun violence still occurs, why have any gun laws.


Do you think there should be no restrictions on guns?

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then I what purpose do they serve?

They make the streets safer for the BLM and Antifa types. If innocent folks are disarmed less opportunity for them to be harmed as they attack you in your car or kick in your door. Have to protect the Hitler youth.

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

The empirical data say that they don't end much, if any.

By Dan's logic why have any type of restrictions or laws, someone will break them anyway.

(05-25-2021 01:41 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 08:42 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  I'm confused. I could have sworn the leftist tards have told us time and time again that there is no gun violence in England because of their strict gun control laws.

No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then what purpose do they serve?

The purpose of any law is to discourage or regulate certain behaviors.

No law is ever followed 100% of the time however.

By your logic, why punish anyone for murder since it clearly still happens.

You should just stop while you can. Do you believe any of the crap you spout here?

(05-25-2021 02:38 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 01:55 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 01:41 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:02 AM)Danforth Wrote:  No one ever said strict gun control laws would end all violence.

Then what purpose do they serve?

The purpose of any law is to discourage or regulate certain behaviors.

No law is ever followed 100% of the time however.

By your logic, why punish anyone for murder since it clearly still happens.

Murdering someone isnt a right litebrite

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

That's not the point.

The point was that if gun violence still occurs, why have any gun laws.


Do you think there should be no restrictions on guns?

I think there should be no restrictions on my right to keep and bear arms in order to protect myself and my family if I am not otherwise prohibited from owning them. That means if I am not a convicted felon, an illegal alien, a convicted domestic abuser, or have been declared mentally unfit. That means I should have the ability to own any weapon or accessory that isn't specifically prohibited by federal statute.

If I want to own a 100 round 9mm drum or 40 round mags of 556 or any other device that is not specifically prohibited by federal statute that right should not be infringed.

(05-25-2021 05:51 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 02:38 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 01:55 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 01:41 PM)Danforth Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 10:04 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Then what purpose do they serve?

The purpose of any law is to discourage or regulate certain behaviors.

No law is ever followed 100% of the time however.

By your logic, why punish anyone for murder since it clearly still happens.

Murdering someone isnt a right litebrite

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

That's not the point.

The point was that if gun violence still occurs, why have any gun laws.


Do you think there should be no restrictions on guns?

I think there should be no restrictions on my right to keep and bear arms in order to protect myself and my family if I am not otherwise prohibited from owning them. That means if I am not a convicted felon, an illegal alien, a convicted domestic abuser, or have been declared mentally unfit. That means I should have the ability to own any weapon or accessory that isn't specifically prohibited by federal statute.

If I want to own a 100 round 9mm drum or 40 round mags of 556 or any other device that is not specifically prohibited by federal statute that right should not be infringed.

Where do you draw the line?

Rocket launchers?
Flame Throwers?
M60?

Serious question.

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Danforth Wrote:  Where do you draw the line?
Rocket launchers?
Flame Throwers?
M60?
Serious question.

OK, I'll let you troll me once.

The right to bear arms is derived from the common-law right of self-defense. Following that line of reasoning, you should be able to possess any arms that you might reasonably have to defend yourself against. I don't think rocket launchers, flame-throwers, or M60s are in general circulation, so I wouldn't think you need a common-law right to defend against them.

On the other hand, there are about 4 million, "assault weapons," in general circulation, and they kill fewer than 100 people a year (out of 30,000 gun deaths). They clearly are not the problem. If the only reason to own one is to go on a killing spree, they are damned inefficient tools for that purpose.

(05-26-2021 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Danforth Wrote:  Where do you draw the line?
Rocket launchers?
Flame Throwers?
M60?
Serious question.

OK, I'll let you troll me once.

The right to bear arms is derived from the common-law right of self-defense. Following that line of reasoning, you should be able to possess any arms that you might reasonably have to defend yourself against. I don't think rocket launchers, flame-throwers, or M60s are in general circulation, so I wouldn't think you need a common-law right to defend against them.

On the other hand, there are about 4 million, "assault weapons," in general circulation, and they kill fewer than 100 people a year (out of 30,000 gun deaths). They clearly are not the problem. If the only reason to own one is to go on a killing spree, they are damned inefficient tools for that purpose.

I'm seriously not trolling. I am a gun owner and I agree with the 2nd amendment. However, I see no logical reason to own an assault weapon.

That's just my personal preference. I'm not saying we should ban them either but they do seem to be pretty popular with the kind of folks who want to shoot up a school or a walmart.

In addition to that, the 2nd amendment also says "a well regulated militia".

All rights have their limitations.

I'm just wondering where everyone's limitations are.