-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 608)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/civ/ - Civics
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 448 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 18/04/09(Mon)01:54 No. 608 ID: 79b576
608

File 152323166831.jpg - (92.72KB , 600x343 , P1370539-900x601_1.jpg )

I support the second amendment rights of all US citizens, and this is somehow unpopular.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/09(Mon)12:45 No. 609 ID: 09f698

>>608
No reasonable person wants to take it away from you or expects you to give it up without going down in a blaze of redundancy.

We should be following the word of the amendment more strictly. All gun owners should be members of their state militia, appropriately trained, and able to serve as the heroes the NRA seems to think they can be. The problem is that we have a lot of lazy gun ownership--incompetent owners having accidents, letting guns slip into the black market, letting children get their hands on weapons, people with a history of violence and mental illness legally purchasing them at undocumented roadshow sales.

Have your right to bear arms, and do it better.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/10(Tue)10:18 No. 611 ID: de56af

If you support arming the mentally unfit and criminal elements then, yes, indeed, you are very unpopular.

If you are like the majority of gun owners and the overwhelming majority of US citizens, you would support reasonable background checks before all forms of gun purchases. If you do not, you are guaranteed to be unpopular, as you are part of the lunatic fringe.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/11(Wed)05:22 No. 615 ID: 242a70

>>609
>We should be following the word of the amendment more strictly. All gun owners should be members of their state militia, appropriately trained, and able to serve as the heroes the NRA seems to think they can be.
Well, it has gone before the Supreme Court several times and been ruled that it covers individuals as it specifically states that the right of the people will not be infringed upon.
>The problem is that we have a lot of lazy gun ownership
You'd have to define a lot. If statistics are any reflection of reality than those problems occur with a very small percentage of gun owners. Also, that's not taking into account the lives saved by gun owners.
>>611
>If you support arming the mentally unfit and criminal elements
That's illegal already.
>background checks
If the amendment's original intent was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, it seems a bit backwards to have to submit to being investigated beforehand by that same government.
Also, it doesn't prevent mentally ill with no prior record from owning a firearm.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/12(Thu)08:10 No. 616 ID: de56af

>>615
>Well, it has gone before the Supreme Court several times and been ruled that it covers individuals as it specifically states that the right of the people will not be infringed upon.
Actually if you follow the case law you'll see that until Scalia came on board and warped its intent it was viewed quite differently. Much like with the first amendment there used to be limits.

>If statistics are any reflection of reality than those problems occur with a very small percentage of gun owners.
Well, considering that less than 10% of the population owns guns and less than 10% of those owners own more than a couple weapons, just how small of a population are we talking about? If its such an infinitesimally small number why does not a week pass without someone shooting themselves, a family member, a neighbor, or an innocent bystander by accident?

>That's illegal already.
Then why are they able to buy firearms from private citizens, gun shows, and other locations without undergoing a background check? If it's illegal, why not make reasonable common sense regulations that won't stop anyone who's actually entitled to purchasing a firearm? If you're going to crap your pants and piss yourself after a couple days wait then why shouldn't the seller be responsible for selling a weapon to someone who shouldn't own one? If they're not going to perform a background check then they should be responsible for vetting the seller themselves.

>If the amendment's original intent was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government
Except that's only been the definition since extreme right wing elements took over the NRA and started pushing their extremist agenda.

Previously citizens could simply sign up for a militia, who would perform the necessary background checks and decide who gets to join the militia. The states organize their own militias and put a check on the federal government.

Sorry buddy, but you bought into their revisionist lies hook, line, and sinker. All because your grandfather wanted to own slaves like his grandfather did.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/12(Thu)20:05 No. 617 ID: 4bc1e9

>>616
>Actually if you follow the case law you'll see that until Scalia came on board and warped its intent it was viewed quite differently.

I do follow the case law and that's untrue.
The precedent was set as the right of the individual since Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

>Well, considering that less than 10% of the population owns guns

Where are you getting that percentage?
Gallup polls shows 42% of American households contain at least one gun.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

>If its such an infinitesimally small number why does not a week pass without someone shooting themselves, a family member, a neighbor, or an innocent bystander by accident?

Accidents happen and firearms are no exception. Accidental death is the 4th most common cause of death in the US.

>Then why are they able to buy firearms from private citizens, gun shows, and other locations without undergoing a background check?

That's not illegal.

>why not make reasonable common sense regulations that won't stop anyone who's actually entitled to purchasing a firearm?

That depends on your definition of reasonable and common sense. Also, the federal government cannot oversee those regulations as that is in direct violation of the amendment. Also, there's no national database of criminals/lunatics.

>why shouldn't the seller be responsible for selling a weapon to someone who shouldn't own one?
Though I agree with you, that's also illegal.

>Except that's only been the definition since extreme right wing elements took over the NRA and started pushing their extremist agenda.

>Previously citizens could simply sign up for a militia, who would perform the necessary background checks and decide who gets to join the militia. The states organize their own militias and put a check on the federal government.

None of that's true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois
and again there's no federal database of criminals and no shared state felon database either.

>Sorry buddy, but you bought into their revisionist lies hook, line, and sinker.

By what you're saying, it sounds as though you're the one who has been believing lies.

>All because your grandfather wanted to own slaves like his grandfather did.

I'm only third generation American and and a northerner.
You don't have to insinuate my family or I are somehow bad just because we disagree.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/13(Fri)06:10 No. 619 ID: 07bbae

>>617
>I do follow the case law and that's untrue.
No, you don't, you simply read what others wrote and it resonated with what you had already decided was the truth and you continue to parrot what you read as the truth.

In reality it wasn't decided until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller.

>Gallup polls shows 42% of American households contain at least one gun.
Seeing as there are federal laws against funding studies about gun ownership and gun use, we may just never know a real number. Not that it'd matter, you'd just scream "fake news" and ignore it because your preconceived decision is challenged.

However your number seems abnormally large and was likely cherrypicked by the ammosexual site you're copying & pasting your responses from.

Just last year Pew found that less than 1 in 3 owned a single firearm:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

Even your cherrypicked finds that 67% of gun owners believe additional regulations should be made. You are clearly one of the frightened children in the body of adults minority.

Here's something interesting, less than 25% of the citizens own nearly 100% of the firearms. If true that would mean 1 in 4 are pissing their pants at the thought of not having their special boom boom to masturbate with each night.


>That's not illegal.
Only because the NRA and like minded stooges like yourself fought tooth and nail for it to be legal so that criminals and maniacs, like yourself, can continue to purchase firearms. The NRA wants to do it because the only people they care about provide kickbacks and "donations" - gun manufacturers.

>Accidental death is the 4th most common cause of death in the US.
Yeah, you're a ultraconservative gun owner alright. Unless an action results in death then it's not a problem. The people who are maimed, disabled, permanently injured, or just plain wounded by careless gun owners don't count.

Perhaps its because you know you're a careless gun owner.

>Also, the federal government cannot oversee those regulations as that is in direct violation of the amendment.
The problem is that the definition of the amendment was changed in 2008 by Scalia. For over 200 years personal ownership of firearms was a heavily regulated and controlled industry and despite countless challenges they remained a heavily regulated and controlled industry.

>You don't have to insinuate my family or I are somehow bad just because we disagree.
But you are. You are arguing for an amendment which was written to allow states to organize militias to capture escaped slaves. It has nothing to do with personal ownership of firearms and very little to do with the thing that keeps you up at night because you've spent years feeding yourself a steady diet of lies and bullshit about tyranny and similar nonsense.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/13(Fri)09:17 No. 620 ID: a8b914

>>619
>No, you don't, you simply read what others wrote and it resonated with what you had already decided was the truth and you continue to parrot what you read as the truth.

That's quite an assumption to make about someone based on absolutely no information.
You wouldn't be trying to delegitimize my argument by defaming my character, would you?

>In reality it wasn't decided until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller.

Well, I was responding to a prior comment debating the second amendment was in reference to an individual's right or the right of a militia.

If this is still the same topic, then you're arguing with Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need."

District of Columbia v. Heller guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

For instance, the decision negated the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and a law ordering that firearms must be locked up or remain disassembled at home.

>Seeing as there are federal laws against funding studies about gun ownership and gun use, we may just never know a real number.

There are tons of studies on gun ownership and gun use. Why do you need the Center for Disease Control to do the study in order to believe the results?

>Not that it'd matter, you'd just scream "fake news" and ignore it because your preconceived decision is challenged.

That's the second time you've made an assumption about me with no information to back it up, and it's beginning to sound a lot like you're purposefully characterizing me as illogical.
I certainly hope this is not an attempt to avoid logically debating me.

>However your number seems abnormally large and was likely cherrypicked by the ammosexual site you're copying & pasting your responses from.
>Just last year Pew found that less than 1 in 3 owned a single firearm:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

I guess, Pew has been cherry picking the same "ammosexual" site.
"About four-in-ten adults (42%) report that there is a gun in their household, with three-in-ten saying they personally own a gun and 11% saying they don’t own a gun but someone else in their household does"

I'm not sure if it's relevant if someone owns the gun or lives in the house and uses it.

If someone broke into your house with the intention of murdering you, would you not use a gun owned by your spouse or roommate to defend yourself because you didn't buy it yourself?

>Even your cherrypicked finds that 67% of gun owners believe additional regulations should be made.

Are you saying because a majority of people believe in additional regulations, I should automatically agree with them?

>You are clearly one of the frightened children in the body of adults minority.

A third assumption?

>less than 25% of the citizens own nearly 100% of the firearms. If true that would mean 1 in 4 are pissing their pants

Are you saying because a minority of people have an affinity for guns, I should disagree with their right to do so?

>stooges like yourself
>maniacs, like yourself

I'm starting to think that you're intolerant of the opinions of others.

>you're a ultraconservative gun owner alright.
>you're a careless gun owner.

I have never owned a gun. There were no guns present in my home growing up. Not a single member of my family has ever owned a gun or expressed any desire to own a gun.

>For over 200 years personal ownership of firearms was a heavily regulated and controlled industry and despite countless challenges they remained a heavily regulated and controlled industry.

Not at all. This was only the case in certain states and municipalities with laws prohibiting the manufacture, sales, and/or possession of firearms.

>You are arguing for an amendment which was written to allow states to organize militias to capture escaped slaves.

Do you have any proof of that?
I believe the general narrative.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
"James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government."

>steady diet of lies and bullshit about tyranny

Here's where we truly disagree.

It's not bullshit. You are a tyrant.

You have no tolerance for civil discourse and no respect for the thoughts of others.
You present your opinions as facts and make up lies to back them up. If anybody questions you or disagrees with you, you berate them and defame them with more lies.

If you or any group of people like you ever made it into positions of power, you would force your will on all and terrorize anyone didn't go along with your agenda.

You and people like you are what the founding fathers always feared the federal government they created would become.

Congratulations. You've convinced me to buy a gun. I hope I never have to defend myself and family from the likes of you.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)07:25 No. 621 ID: 07bbae

>>620
You wouldn't happen to be someone who claims the 2nd amendment is absolute and can't be questioned or modified in any way, would you?

Because last time I checked 1 came before 2 and the 1st has limits.

Maybe you should go masturbate to your firearm collection and meet up with the other 20% of the nation who masturbate to their firearm collection and have yourselves a good old fashioned circle jerk.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)07:37 No. 622 ID: dbad57

>>615
>the lives saved by gun owners
This is a myth purpoted by the NRA. Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed. You're already typing some sort of refutation--stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths about the glory of gun ownership that only serve to increase profits for the gun manufacturers who pay the gun lobbyists who take them golfing, throw galas for them in vegas, and get their kids into exclusive schools.

And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void. Go ahead, keep on thinking that more armed people means more safe people. At least you're doing something about our overpopulation problem.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)08:10 No. 623 ID: 093f34

>>621
>Because last time I checked 1 came before 2 and the 1st has limits.

So because the first amendment has limits, the second should too?
The second amendment does have limits, but not because of that dumb reasoning.

>Maybe you should go masturbate to your firearm collection

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read my whole post, so I'll say it again.
I DO NOT OWN ANY FIREARMS

>>622
>stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths

"Stop arguing with me because I'm right about everything! No, I don't have any proof or logic or ability to make a point! Just know that I know what's best for everyone!"
Mhm

>And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void.

I don't doubt that you have the best intentions, but you have no right to tell people how to live their lives just because you don't agree.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)12:30 No. 624 ID: 07bbae

>>623
>I don't know how IDs work
That was someone else fed up with your bullshit, genius.

If more weapons makes everyone safer, why is there still war? If more firearms make everyone safer why do armies, the most well-armed group, still go to war?

>So because the first amendment has limits, the second should too?
You've got it genius. No single constitutional right is absolute to the detriment of all other constitutional rights.

That's what the 2nd was up until the late 70s when the wingnuts took over the NRA and started pushing an absolutist agenda that got them little more than scorn from supreme court justices in the 70s. Who the fuck knew they'd actually get one of their very own wingnuts appointed.

>I DO NOT OWN ANY FIREARMS
I don't believe you. There's no way someone can spew your kind of psychotic paranoid delusions without having a death woobie to hold onto each night while you drift off to sleep to thoughts of all the children he can massacre with it.

Eat a bullet.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)13:27 No. 625 ID: 71faa7

>>624
>That was someone else fed up with your bullshit, genius.

If you're referring to my comments about whoever was saying "just stop it" I figured that was the collective thought of the anti gun side of this debate as I don't see any rational thought coming from anyone opposing my viewpoint in this thread.

>If more weapons makes everyone safer, why is there still war? If more firearms make everyone safer why do armies, the most well-armed group, still go to war?

I never at any point said more guns makes people safer. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Wars happened before the invention of guns.

>You've got it genius. No single constitutional right is absolute to the detriment of all other constitutional rights.

It's not absolute. Seeing as automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are banned, I'd say it's pretty restricted.

>I don't believe you. There's no way someone can spew your kind of psychotic paranoid delusions without having a death woobie to hold onto each night while you drift off to sleep to thoughts of all the children he can massacre with it.

Believe it or not. I don't really care. Sounds like you're the one suffering paranoid delusions that everyone who opposes your views is some crazy conservative gun nut on a first name basis with NRA leaders.

>Eat a bullet.
Yeah, you sound like a real pacifist.
Glad you care so much about the safety of others.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)16:09 No. 626 ID: c62b88

>>623
Actually I specified the very logic you can look up proof to confirm if you really need to, but you will never do anything other than parrot the propoganda your casually genocidal overlords decree.

Simple version: you think like gun profiteers; their only motivation profit; outcome more death only.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)18:52 No. 627 ID: 9fbf2d

>>626
>Actually I specified the very logic you can look up proof to confirm if you really need to,

I'll look it up. Let's have it.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)10:48 No. 628 ID: 07bbae

>>625
>Yeah, you sound like a real pacifist.
Who said I was a pacifist?

You're the one hyperventilating at the thought of not having your death sticks.

Maybe its time you get some scrotal implants, what you've got down there obviously isn't enough to get you through the day.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)13:13 No. 629 ID: ece0bf

>>628
>Who said I was a pacifist?

So, why do you care if people own guns again?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)17:27 No. 630 ID: 265579

>>627
You're asking about this? >>622
There it is. Right there. Can you even read?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)23:05 No. 631 ID: 2cf414

>>630
Oh, right. So much logic, how could I have missed it?

>This is a myth purpoted by the NRA.
Any proof of that statement?

>Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed.

How could you possibly have any stats for that?

For instance, the mass shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas was mortally wounded by an armed bystander.
How could you possibly calculate how many more people he would have killed if he hadn't been shot?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/18(Wed)05:35 No. 632 ID: 49549c

>>631
You said you'd look it up, so look it up.

You'd never believe anything I told you anyway.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)03:28 No. 633 ID: 5a1576

>>632
I'd believe what you told me, if you could back it up with evidence.

The only semi credible article I'm seeing for either side of the debate is in Scientific American and it reads like an oped piece for a high school newspaper.

So, do us all a favor and provide a source for your statements.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)06:26 No. 634 ID: c38524

>>633
I'm not your high-school social studies teacher. If you want an education you're going to have to go and get one.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)14:33 No. 636 ID: 11b5b1

>>634
>education
Well, I believe social studies ends in junior high and is also based on factual evidence.

You're making a claim based on "common sense", but when asked to prove it, you have no evidence.

If you want to blindly follow an ideology, that's fine. But, don't try and bring me down to your level.
All of my posts have been objective, rational, and based on sources that I have provided.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)03:34 No. 637 ID: 7b20f8

>>636
You're already blindly following an ideology.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)05:40 No. 638 ID: 7152a8

>>637
>blindly
People have had the right to bear arms since the US was founded and that right was an integral part of this country's victory in it's war for independence.

It is a right of US citizens designated in the constitution.

I don't own any guns nor do I clamor that everyone should own a gun.

I believe people should be free to defend themselves or not depending on their personal preferences.

I believe in liberty.

My thoughts are based on the founding principles of the US.

You want to deprive people of their rights and sacrifice the validity of our constitution because you think you know better based on no verifiable facts.

You're blind.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)09:33 No. 639 ID: a3370a
639

File 152446882470.webm - (412.32KB , 720x1280 , Rockwell.webm )

>>638
Tanks, nuclear weapons, weaponized chemical warfare, all these and more are off limits for personal ownership. If there are limits on personal ownership, and you're not clamoring for unlimited personal ownership, then all you're really arguing over is where the line should be drawn. Like a woman who gives it up when you treat them to dinner at a five star restaurant, all we're arguing over here is price, at the end of the day you're still a whore.

Cloaking yourself in the flag for bullshit ideological reasons isn't going to win you any converts here, lunatic.

What you need to do is find yourself a bunch of like minded folks, build a large compound for you all to live in, have sex with their children, and continue amassing weapons and selling them indiscriminately. When confronted over your illegal activities be sure to set your compound on fire rather than submit to a legal warrant for your arrest.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/23(Mon)19:43 No. 641 ID: 3ac2f3

>>639
>Tanks, nuclear weapons, weaponized chemical warfare, all these and more are off limits for personal ownership

I think it'd be a stretch to consider those to be covered under the second amendment, but I'm pretty sure you can own a tank provided it's not against local/state laws and you have the appropriate permits, though it certainly wouldn't be street legal.

>If there are limits on personal ownership, and you're not clamoring for unlimited personal ownership, then all you're really arguing over is where the line should be drawn.

Aside from that being based on an exaggerated interpretation of the second amendment, I didn't state that.
I stated:
>I don't own any guns nor do I clamor that everyone should own a gun.
Meaning if you don't feel that you want/need a gun, don't buy one.

You seem to have a real problem with people thinking for themselves and being free to make their own decisions.
Do you need someone to tell you how to think and what to do because you're stupid or because you can't stand taking any responsibility for your own thoughts and actions?

>you're still a whore.
>lunatic
>What you need to do

Such a sad little tyrant.
It must be so frustrating for you that people in the US are allowed to think for themselves and make their own choices.

Lucky for everyone, one of the founding principles of the US was to prevent the majority of people from tyrannizing the minority.
So, I guess you'll just have to settle for being an internet bully instead of a full fledged nazi.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)00:42 No. 642 ID: a870df

>>641
>You seem to have a real problem with people thinking for themselves and being free to make their own decisions.
You seem to think yelling fire in a crowded theatre is perfectly defensible behavior. After all, the person yelling is thinking for themselves and making their own decisions.

I suggest you seek therapy for your paranoid delusions. It'll be cheaper than firearms and actually provide tangible benefits to you as a person, unlike firearms.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)01:22 No. 643 ID: fc3ef2

>>642
>You seem to think yelling fire in a crowded theatre is perfectly defensible behavior. After all, the person yelling is thinking for themselves and making their own decisions.

Good analogy. Is that your argument against independent thought and action?

Pretty ironic, considering you're part of a crowd stampeding over people's rights in your panic after believing a falsehood.

Independent thoughts and choices are dangerous for everyone when we have people like you around who can't think for themselves.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)02:39 No. 645 ID: 0c6af2

>>643
>a crowd stampeding over people's rights
Today in OP's mind: other myths purported by the NRA.

You've really got to drop this "I don't have or want any guns" rhetoric. Do you honestly think you can be so god damn ammosexual and use that bit to get people who actually do not wish to own guns on your side? This is like hearing the cookie monster say he has no need for chocolate chips, then giving you a recipie for chocolate chunk cookies.

>>641
>you can own a tank
Actually, yeah. Arnold Schwarzenegger owns one as a private citizen but of course it has been rendered incapable of firing and can only be driven on his estate. His is the only privately owned tank I know of that is actually mobile; some veteran's associations have immobilized ones on display.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)03:26 No. 646 ID: f0cdfe

>>645
>Do you honestly think you can be so god damn ammosexual and use that bit to get people who actually do not wish to own guns on your side?

No, I've been repeatedly accused of being something that I'm not and I apparently have to repeat myself.

>His is the only privately owned tank I know of that is actually mobile; some veteran's associations have immobilized ones on display.

What you don't know could fill volumes.
https://tanktownusa.com


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)04:22 No. 647 ID: 95d4f9

>>646
>tanktownusa
I can think of a lot more satisfying ways to spend $150 for 10 minutes.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)04:32 No. 648 ID: f0cdfe

>>647
Yeah, but this way you won't wake up with AIDS.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)04:48 No. 650 ID: 078e45

>>648
The NRA is political AIDS.

It's highly contagious, mostly spread through ammosexuality and political ambition, undermines our immunity to propaganda, and will eventually allow a minor rash of gun violence to kill our entire society.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)05:20 No. 651 ID: f0cdfe

>>650
Total number of homicides with a firearm this year: 3,555

Total US population: 326,625,791

Total number of facts provided to substantiate any of the antigun rhetoric or evil nra influence itt: 0

I think we're good.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)07:04 No. 652 ID: 6a38d6

>>651
>antigun rhetoric
Where's the anti-gun rhetoric in this thread?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)08:49 No. 653 ID: a3370a
653

File 152455255262.gif - (0.98MB , 675x810 , KSS.gif )

>>652
Imagine you're a man. Imagine your gonads were removed by your parents when you were just a child.

Now read the thread. You'll find the things he finds objectionable due to his complete lack of anything approaching manhood.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)08:50 No. 654 ID: a3370a

>>643
>Pretty ironic, considering you're part of a crowd stampeding over people's rights in your panic after believing a falsehood.
Yeah, keep believing in crisis actors and similar patently ridiculous fantasies designed to keep you perpetually afraid and stupid.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/24(Tue)09:42 No. 656 ID: 32a48d
656

File 152455574553.jpg - (49.39KB , 514x514 , crisisactors.jpg )

>>652
Well, it went from only ten percent of the population owns guns and accidentally shoot people all the time to ammosexuals to anybody that owns a gun doesn't have any balls to guns don't protect anybody so no one should have them to every firearm owner is some nra stooge to I'm some nra stooge because I think people should be able to buy guns if they want.

>>654
K


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)01:50 No. 657 ID: a870df
657

File 152461384111.jpg - (65.60KB , 648x610 , Sheeple.jpg )

>>656
You're an NRA stooge because you think that guns are going to protect you from government takeover, a fantasy concocted by NRA stooges that has yet to happen (because, if it did happen, your little pew pew toys wouldn't stop it), while simultaneously discounting that the current state of virtually unrestricted access to firearms has increased the instance and severity of mass shootings, very real acts that occur in increasingly frequent and greater numbers, leading to actual deaths that are occurring on a regular basis.

This is how we know you prefer fantasy to reality. And when your fantasies are pointed out, you retreat into increasingly dogmatic ideological arguments about how you deserve the right to murder your fellow citizens in cold blood after the neighbors dog starts talking to you because 2nd amendment is an eternal god-given right and has no limits.

Quite frankly, I find the delusional mental state you're in disturbing.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)04:16 No. 658 ID: 2db709

>>657
What fantasies? What has been pointed out?

All I've gotten for my efforts to discuss this logically is a bunch of unsubstantiated stupid ass shit CNN told you fifteen seconds ago and you've adopted as your personal mantra.

Not to mention, instead of rising to the challenge of discussing the issue with any semblance of objectivity or civility, you've just been steady talking shit the whole time like you're winning a nonexistent argument.

There is no debate happening here.
It's just me stating my beliefs based on historical references and facts, and you trying to demonize my motives so you can avoid discussing the topic altogether while feeling superior.

Finally, I'm the third person that I've personally witnessed you call delusional for disagreeing with you when the fact of the matter is you've been huffing your own fucking farts for so long you've become fucking retarded.

Now back that spew up with some evidence or take a fucking walk, asshole.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)04:41 No. 659 ID: 073bd0

>>657
And for the last fucking time, I don't have any pew pew toys because I don't need any.

If you were ever fucking dunb enough to say something like this >>653 to my fucking face, you'd be picking your teeth out of your shit for a fucking week.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)07:30 No. 660 ID: 37f869
660

File 152463424037.png - (709.10KB , 960x640 , Mmmyeah.png )

I support reasonable common sense limitations on the second amendment, similar to how there are limitations on all amendments, and this is somehow unpopular with an overwhelming minority of citizens and the gun manufacturers they stooge for.

Also, if you tried to hit me, you'd find yourself face down with a broken arm so fast you'd wonder what the fuck just happened. Stick to raping your cousins, they're the only ones fat and stupid enough for you to stand a chance of winning in a fight.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/25(Wed)07:32 No. 661 ID: 37f869
661

File 152463432686.jpg - (38.93KB , 1280x720 , Maxxy.jpg )

>>656
>still thinks he's arguing with a single person
>the IDs mean nothingk


>>
Anonymous 18/04/26(Thu)02:35 No. 662 ID: 7a09e3

>>660
>reasonable, common sense regulations
Like what?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/26(Thu)21:52 No. 663 ID: a870df

>>658
>What fantasies?
...
>you think that guns are going to protect you from government takeover, a fantasy concocted by NRA stooges
You can't seriously be this slow.

Then again, you have stated you think your little toy guns are going to stop M1A2s and F22s so I guess that question has been answered.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)00:46 No. 664 ID: e85e92

>Then again, you have stated you think your little toy guns are going to stop M1A2s and F22s so I guess that question has been answered.

Well, I actually never stated that, so...


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)07:59 No. 665 ID: 6df502

>>656
>guns don't protect anybody so no one should have them
Only you have made this statement.

Go ahead, look over the whole thread. The only post in which this assertion is made is yours. There is no leftist anti-gun cukold conspiracy, there never was, and there never will be. No one is stupid enough to think gun owners could be made to turn over their weapons in the United States; even the most communist left wing transgendered snowflake pony princesses understand this.

Regulation is not disarmament. Making it more difficult for people with a history of criminal acts or mental illness to obtain deadly weapons is not a threat to mentally fit and law-abiding owners of guns. Requiring owners to register their weapons and ammunition is not a violation of their privacy or the first step toward tyranny; it just reduces the likelyhood that those particular weapons and ammunition will be used in a violent crime or traded on the black market.

You're probably warming up some stale argument about how regulation is meaningless because criminals will still get guns on the black market--shove it up your ass. Lack of regulation is the reason we have such a black market; solving that problem would take a lot more than just a few new laws--you don't even want to think about the kind of work it would take. Doing nothing about it won't make it go away either. Mentally fit and law-abiding citizens will always be able to acquire guns in the United States; that will never change. The black market will survive for as long as there is a supply of unregistered weapons to trade; greater regulation will reduce that supply, and therefore reduce the black market.

No one has argued against guns. We have been arguing against your stupid NRA propaganda talking points.

>>658
>evidence
Why should I bother looking up sources for you to refute? Stop pretending you are capable of debate. You don't even have your own thoughts; everything you argue comes straight out of the NRA handbook.

>There is no debate happening here.
At last, something we can agree on. The reason it feels like no one is listening to you, is that no one is listening to you. This isn't Georgia, this isn't Texas; we aren't fat uneducated rednecks. This is 7chan, we're monsters, and we don't respond well to programming.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)10:07 No. 666 ID: 37f869
666

File 15248164236.png - (163.40KB , 550x689 , WhatIf.png )

>>665
Actually even in Texas the tide is turning against NRA stooges. A few weeks ago a survey found that the majority of gun owners in the state were in favor of common sense gun reform. This isn't a new thing, the tide has been turning away from lunatic fringe elements like OP for years now. Texas is behind the curve, but its still following the same trend as the rest of the country. The difference is that outside of Texas and like minded places the tide is severely against the fear-based rhetoric that OP keeps trotting out with minimal prompting.

I think the primary fear that OP and people like OP have is that if mentally incompetent people are prevented from having access to firearms that it means people like him will be prevented from having access to firearms. This is the fundamental fear of the average NRA stooge.

They severely beat their spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. and have a restraining order taken out against them, which in any competent regulatory framework would prevent them from purchasing new firearms and having their access to existing firearms removed until such time as the restraining order is lifted. Not feeling the cold caress of a barrel against their cheek as they fantasize about revenge, not being able to feel a sense of security from the knowledge that they are the arbiters of life and death for everyone they encounter on a daily basis.

The thought that those and more could be a thing of the past puts fear in the blackness that replaced their heart all those years ago.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)16:18 No. 668 ID: aa0e26

>>665
Right there >>622
>Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed

My argument is what the fuck do you mean by "reasonable"? What the fuck do you mean by common sense? What do you mean by more than a few new laws?
Is there a national database of anybody who has ever had a crazy thought? Is there a national database of people before that are about to have a crazy thought?
Is there a database of state felons that's going to be updated and maintained for all fifty states?
Are you going to pay to background check everyone against these nonexistent databases or for the data or anything?

Make a legitimate argument already.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)16:24 No. 669 ID: 7cc7b3

>>667
>Right there
This is clearly an argument against NRA propaganda, not guns, gun ownership, or the second amendment.

Is this what you interpret as an "anti-gun" statement? I'm so sorry it ripped your tiny little anus to have to read some common fucking sense. This isn't wiki-fucking-pedia; believe it or not it is possible for people to know things that were not told to them by other people. You want to know what my source is? Everything is my source; living in the real world is my source; being well read and informed is my source. If you want to have an argument, you need to have some knowledge of your own to base it on. Go get an education; thank me later.

>Make a legitimate argument already.
You don't want to hear a legitimate argument, you want to refute anything anyone has to say against your gun-lobbyist overlords. You cannot argue; all you are capable of is refuting anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you. The only reason you feel like your point of view has any validity is that you are incapable of accepting defeat. This is the miracle of the internet: no one ever has to lose an argument, you can just keep going on and on forever because its just text in posts with no consequences.

>>666
>if mentally incompetent people are prevented from having access to firearms it means people like him will be prevented from having access to firearms
Devilpost == Truthpost


>>
Anonymous 18/04/27(Fri)19:40 No. 670 ID: 88466f

>>669
>This is clearly an argument against NRA propaganda, not guns, gun ownership, or the second amendment.

By saying nobody should be armed but authorities and criminals based on data you don't have? Oh right... common sense...

>Everything is my source; living in the real world is my source; being well read and informed is my source. If you want to have an argument, you need to have some knowledge of your own to base it on. Go get an education; thank me later.

So, you have no source? Your source is that you think you're smarter than everyone else based on no evidence whatsoever.

>You don't want to hear a legitimate argument, you want to refute anything anyone has to say against your gun-lobbyist overlords. You cannot argue; all you are capable of is refuting anything or anyone that doesn't agree with you. The only reason you feel like your point of view has any validity is that you are incapable of accepting defeat.

Yeah, don't tell me what I want. I've been saying I want a fact based argument this whole time, you can't provide any information, so you keep trying to demonize me and digress into some NRA bullshit.

It's sad you think you're educated.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)05:42 No. 671 ID: 817551

>>670
>fact based argument
"Alternative" facts don't count. I gave you facts, you didn't like them. I made legitimate arguments, you didn't respond to them. You aren't here for a debate; you're just looking for an excuse to parrot the NRA's propoganda. Go be an idiot somewhere else.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)08:15 No. 673 ID: 37f869
673

File 152489614744.jpg - (52.47KB , 1125x467 , Truth Stings.jpg )

>>671
>Go get an education; thank me later.
He clearly lives in an armed compound in Montana where the only people inside are related to him by blood and their collective ignorance of the outside world.

If he tried to leave they'd shoot him.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)12:13 No. 674 ID: 37f869
674

File 152491043447.jpg - (149.94KB , 1440x907 , Concealed-Guns.jpg )

>>671
>"Alternative" facts don't count.
Personally, I find it rather suspicious that he continually trots out "facts" that exclusively swing far over to the NRA side of the fence. For example, the poll he cited to come up with his 42% is the outlier of polls on the subject, yet he clings to it like its the only possible truth. Then he disparages the very media that gave him this one and only possible truth because they dare to publish information that contradict his preconceived notions/NRA funded bullet points.

He gets unhinged the moment holes in his story are pointed out and starts foaming at the mouth about buying firearms and balling up all 97 pounds of himself to try and assault someone, almost as if he's just trying to distract from his abject failure.

And that's not even mentioning his bizarre interpretation of SCOTUS rulings, where the hundreds of rulings that contradict the NRAs recent extremist interpretation of the 2nd amendment simply don't exist, and instead prefers to cherry pick the few that do. I suppose it isn't all that surprising though, seeing as Scalia did the same thing when writing his opinions. Submerged in a sea of NRA misinformation and abject lies, he strikes out with furious anger at anyone who tries to drag him out of the comfortable imaginary wooby he's decided to live in.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)12:55 No. 675 ID: 28802c

>>671
>>673
>>674
Echo chamber.

This is why you guys are retarded.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/28(Sat)19:29 No. 676 ID: 762bfe

>>671
What facts? You mean the ones with no source?
Those are neither facts or legitimate.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)01:40 No. 677 ID: 388706

>>676
I wasn't aware that the definition of 'fact' is "something that has been published by a source you believe". I'll have to update my dictionary.

>>675
You lose, deal with it.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)02:47 No. 679 ID: 72f69e

>>677
Fact as in something you can prove. Not "everything" is a source.

Didn't really lose anything seeing as the law doesn't favor your bullshit and most likely never will.

Also, you never made an argument.

Also, it was never about winning. It was about having a civil conversation, which apparently you're incapable of doing.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:06 No. 681 ID: a19566

>>680
>Use it to kill yourself.

You're a disgusting person. Your mother must be ashamed of you.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:09 No. 682 ID: 388706

>>681
Ah, you replied too fast; edited:

>>679
>thinks armed bystanders are the saviors of society
>has no statistics to prove the merit of this belief
>wants statistics to prove that the number of people murdered by firearms is greater than the number of people saved by armed bystanders

If you really don't own any guns, I think you should go out and buy one. Use it to kill yourself. Guns save lives; the rest of us will be a lot better off without you.

>the law doesn't favor your bullshit
Please tell me what you think my bullshit is and how it has anything to do with the law.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:28 No. 684 ID: 388706
684

File 152496889937.jpg - (19.00KB , 268x178 , what-you-sound-like.jpg )

>>681
Now we're having a /civ/il conversation!


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)04:32 No. 685 ID: a19566

>>684
If you really want to talk about something that affects people negatively and costs lives, it's suicide.

Suicide is at a record high. People die from loneliness. People die from unhappiness.
For you to say that to a complete stranger, unprovoked, is despicable, and it truly sickens me.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)05:26 No. 686 ID: 388706

>>685
Welcome to the Internet.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)05:51 No. 687 ID: 112a42

>>686
And then you're shocked people go on shooting sprees...


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)08:24 No. 688 ID: 388706

>>687
Me? Not in the least. OP's a ticking timebomb; I'm serious about the rest of us being better off without him.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)15:10 No. 690 ID: 92ff4e

>>688
I meant that as in you and the vast majority of people are callous assholes to people on the internet and then everyone is really taken aback when the least of us goes crazy and shoots up a waffle house or a school or whatever.

The best unpopular people in life or on the internet or both can hope to get from you is dismissed or ignored and the worst is bullied and teased and terrorized.

Then, we blame guns.

Not that it in any way justifies mass murder, but you truly are a garbage hunan being.
I'm sure you'll dismiss this comment or play it off as a joke, much like you do any criticism of yourself, but just letting you know that it's absolutely disgusting to share a platform with you.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)18:58 No. 693 ID: 388706

>>690
>when the least of us goes crazy
>we blame guns
I don't. I blame you; not even the NRA you love so much, but you, personally, for going along with them--advocating putting guns into any hand than can hold them.

There are some people who are callous and mean and some who are crazy and weak. It's been that way since a long time before there was an Internet. Mean people don't make crazy people go on rampages. When someone with enough pent up rage gets their hands on a weapon, they tend to come up with violent solutions to their problems. Nothing absolves them of exercising their free will; they are just as responsible for their own actions as anyone else.

We can't fix meanness, craziness, or weakness, but it's not like we can't do anything about it--we could reduce the body counts. We could restrict access to weapons that enable the mentally ill to create large body counts; we could require regular training and mental health checks for gun owners; there's a lot we could do without repealing your precious amendment.

>it's absolutely disgusting to share a platform with you
You've come to the wrong platform.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)20:09 No. 694 ID: ed5ef3

>>693
>When someone with enough pent up rage gets their hands on a weapon

Like a van or a truck or a knife or a bomb

>We can't fix meanness, craziness, or weakness, but it's not like we can't do anything about it--we could reduce the body counts.

Or you could take some responsibility for your own actions.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/29(Sun)23:35 No. 695 ID: ee9005

>>693
We need more mass shootings, not less. We have to cull the weak, the degenerates, people like yourself.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)04:44 No. 697 ID: 388706

>>694
>Like a van or a truck or a knife or a bomb
Exactly.

>Or you could take some responsibility for your own actions.
>Nothing absolves them of exercising their free will; they are just as responsible for their own actions as anyone else.
>anyone else
I know you didn't complete high school, and this sentence is very long. What I am saying here is that everyone is responsible for their own actions; weak, crazy, mean, stupid, or otherwise.

>>695
To be honest I was very tempted to make a contribution to the cause as a schoolboy, but as an adult I find it far more satisfying to inspire pathetic NRA stooges to kill themselves. I'm still contributing to depopulation, in smaller way.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)05:38 No. 698 ID: ef38e0

>>697
>everyone
Yeah. That includes you, fuckface.

Stop being a douche bag to people for no reason or don't complain when some crazy asshole blows your fucking head off or runs you over in a truck or stabs your dumb ass to death.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)06:31 No. 699 ID: 388706

>>698
>don't complain when some crazy asshole blows your fucking head off
That's some nice passive agressive you've got there.
You're totally not making threats at people, right? >>687
It's going to be their fault when you have to punish them.

If you aren't killing yourself any time soon, the least you could do is check in to some therapy. It's not my fault you're so thin skinned that you can't handle the Internet, but I am a little worried you'll tell the police you murded all those people because someone was mean to you on 7chan. I don't think Saz would appreciate that kind of publicity.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)08:29 No. 700 ID: 7b3bd5

>>699
I really doubt I have the sole honor of being the only person you're a complete asshole to on the internet, and you hand out psych evals and therapy recommendations like candy.

I'm just saying you really can't complain if it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Maybe consider taking some responsibility for the culture you're a part of that causes these killings instead of blaming inanimate objects.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)09:06 No. 703 ID: 7b3bd5

>>699
>That's some nice passive agressive you've got there.
>That's some nice passive aggression you've got there.

Who didn't graduate high school?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)09:09 No. 704 ID: 67518b

>>700
>the culture you're a part of that causes these killings
Pretty sure I explained that people are responsible for their own actions. Twice: >>693 >>697.

>blaming inanimate objects
Pretty sure I explained that I blame you, not guns >>693, and that no one is talking about disarmament except you >>665.

While we're going over every point we've already discussed yet again, might I remind you that you are incapable of having an argument because >>669:
>This is the miracle of the internet: no one ever has to lose an argument, you can just keep going on and on forever because its just text in posts with no consequences.

>I really doubt I have the sole honor of being the only person you're a complete asshole to on the internet
Do you realize where you are? >>665
>This is 7chan, we're monsters, and we don't respond well to programming.
This is not a place for nice people; this is the jungle--you will be attacked because you are weak. It's not impossible to have a civil conversation or to debate and find common ground, but you're going to need to lurk moar and develop the strength of character to compete.

Now, I am done. You never had a point worth making, and I am not interested in your broken-record method of argument.

>>622
>And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void. Go ahead, keep on thinking that more armed people means more safe people. At least you're doing something about our overpopulation problem.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)09:45 No. 706 ID: 7b3bd5

>>704
>Pretty sure I explained that people are responsible for their own actions.

Okay. You can take that attitude all the way to the funeral home.

Massacres happen because people are grieved, not because they have access to weapons.
This attitude that massacres just "happen" and are "part and parcel of life in the modern Western society" is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

The problem is that nobody has any empathy or sympathy. They're all so self-absorbed and unwilling to exert even the most miniscule effort to help outcasts better integrate into society that these outcasts simply lash out in a sperg attack because no one is willing to even attempt to understand or help them.

>Pretty sure I explained that I blame you, not guns

How dare I repeat a constitutional amendment to you! Less rights for anyone who disagrees with me!
I'll deem them all crazy! I took psych 101 after all!

>might I remind you that you are incapable of having an argument because I'm too retarded to make a constructive argument against the status quo based on anything other than my opinion!

K

>blahblahblah I post on chans so I'm the edgiest edgemeister

No comment, grandmaster fag

>This is a myth purpoted by the NRA. Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed. You're already typing some sort of refutation--stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths about the glory of gun ownership that only serve to increase profits for the gun manufacturers who pay the gun lobbyists who take them golfing, throw galas for them in vegas, and get their kids into exclusive schools.

Straight from the horse's mouth! He knows everything! except for the source of this information
He's got a bachelor's degree from state school and reads Facebook articles, so we don't need to question it!

Somebody get this fucking guy a Pulitzer!


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)11:23 No. 707 ID: 67518b

>>706
I know, I said I was done; I really don't want to keep doing this, but you just keep posting...

>so self-absorbed and unwilling to exert even the most miniscule effort to help outcasts better integrate into society
The rest of your blather aside, I'll concede to you on this point--we could reduce the incidence of mass murders by dealing with the mental illness problem in our society. Unfortunately, that's not something that can be easily, permanently, or completely fixed. You have a habit of ignoring anything relevant so let me reiterate everything I said in this post: >>693 Try as we may, there will always be people who are mean and people who are weak and people who are crazy--it's a lot simpler to reduce the number of people killed through regulation than to fix the state of our whole society.

We could work on it, but 7chan isn't the place to start. We need to identify the weak, easily offended, and socially rejected early, and help them develop strength of character in childhood. It isn't that others lack empathy, but that they do not afford it to the weak. If the least of us develop their social skills, stand up for themselves, and not let others offend them so easily, they will be treated more equally. I know, I experienced this first hand when I was young--the day came when I developed strength of character; stood up for myself; and stopped whining about every little offense--and then I recieved respect and empathy.

Still, it's just too much fun trolling you to give up being an asshole on the Internet.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)12:08 No. 708 ID: f007af
708

File 15250829303.png - (41.58KB , 640x278 , Well.png )

>>707
He's not entirely to blame for continuing to post through. People who get wedded into their little ideological bubble often times will react like he does to any attempt to break them out of that bubble. Furious anger and mindless rhetoric about how horrible everyone is that disagrees with their overly simplistic view of the world.

Like pointing out that crimes and deaths involving firearms always drop in states that host NRA conventions during the time of the convention. That it's not a one time aberration, the trend goes back for decades. All those firearm owners stripped of their weapons during much of the convention.

Facts like these and more are why he and the NRA are so terrified of federal research into firearm violence that they year after year write clauses into congressional bills to stop it from occurring. And when Obama forced the CDC to start investigating it they wholehog batshit insane, moving people like OP further into their little protective cocoons.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/30(Mon)12:31 No. 709 ID: 67518b
709

File 152508428675.jpg - (111.45KB , 852x480 , NRA-emergency-debate-strategy.jpg )

>>708
Pic related: NRA emergency debate strategy: cover your ears, close your eyes, and scream about the consitution.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)00:11 No. 710 ID: daa3d2
710

File 152512627231.jpg - (14.24KB , 589x112 , well.jpg )

>>707
>trolling you

Oh, that makes sense. Okay, I guess I'll disregard your bullshit and stop responding to you now.

>>708
More lies, huh? Pretty lame.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)05:42 No. 712 ID: 4e4364

>>710
I like how you again avoided engaging in an actual discussion and disregarded reality all at once there.
Nice work NRA; shoop's not half bad either.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)06:57 No. 714 ID: 7a86a4
714

File 152515063520.jpg - (106.07KB , 592x793 , masterobamasays.jpg )

>>712
>I like how you again avoided engaging in an actual discussion and disregarded reality all at once there.

Obama said I didn't have to respond because you're dumb and don't matter.

>Nice work NRA; shoop's not half bad either.

Look closely and you'll notice that it's not shooped.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)11:42 No. 715 ID: 4c997f

>>714
You have no reason to believe this but I am genuinely concerned about your mental illness. You should be in therapy; you should be on medication. I don't think you are a physical threat to anyone, but I am concerned that you have lost the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)17:16 No. 717 ID: c212c7

>>715
What's your medical background again?
Nonexistent?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)17:54 No. 719 ID: 3d0bd0

>>717
By the way, are you dbbs?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/01(Tue)18:37 No. 720 ID: 4753e3

>>719
Why are you asking me? Ask Fraud Freud over here >>715


>>
Anonymous 18/05/02(Wed)06:40 No. 721 ID: f007af
721

File 152523600856.jpg - (37.28KB , 640x595 , Is It Real Or Is It Alcohol.jpg )

>>710
>More lies
Oh god, you really need to get out of your fantasy bubble in a while.

I was referencing a peer reviewed study that was published last week.

Given that you're so level headed and even keeled I'm surprised you hadn't heard about it, given that you're so interested in finding out the truth rather than just regurgitating the same old tired lines of bullshit the NRA has been feeding ammosexuals for years.

Pic related, its what you see at night that makes you clutch your firearms tight.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/02(Wed)08:38 No. 722 ID: f007af
722

File 152524312219.jpg - (43.72KB , 720x720 , True Bravery.jpg )

>>717
Anyone who would be driven to purchase a firearm because someone online else made fun of their lack of genitals isn't exactly the kind of person who should have easy access to firearms. The same kind of people can be driven to eat their firearm by reading online comments.

We're only thinking about your safety, since you clearly have trouble foreseeing the consequences of your decisions.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/02(Wed)13:28 No. 723 ID: 049883

>>721
>>722
You're trying too hard now.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/03(Thu)06:20 No. 724 ID: 8d577d

>Like pointing out that crimes and deaths involving firearms always drop in states that host NRA conventions during the time of the convention. That it's not a one time aberration, the trend goes back for decades. All those firearm owners stripped of their weapons during much of the convention.
>crimes and deaths involving firearms
>given that you're so interested in finding out the truth

It was on firearm related injuries, liar.

>fantasy bubble

Here's an excerpt:
>This observational study does not provide conclusive evidence about the NRA's influence on gun safety overall and "cannot be causally attributed to the meetings themselves"

So, yeah. More lies.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)08:44 No. 725 ID: f007af
725

File 152541625355.jpg - (201.28KB , 1280x1334 , Kanye.jpg )

>>724
Well of course they said that, they don't want to run afoul of the dickey amendment.

They really make them slow in your part of the country, don't they?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)08:46 No. 726 ID: f007af

>>723
>replies to two different people
>trying too hard
So how many times do you perform fellatio on yourself each day?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)10:22 No. 727 ID: 4f680e

>>725
What part of the country are you from again?

>replies to two different people
Both your replies that have the same ID you have now >>726 replying to me trying really hard to elicit some emotional response.

You confusing yourself now caught up in your own retarded trolling?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)16:13 No. 728 ID: 11d5aa
728

File 152544320896.jpg - (152.32KB , 880x660 , logician-for-the-nra_live-long-and-arm-yourself.jpg )

>>727
>trying really hard to elicit some emotional response
See that, that's what I mean by passive agressive [implied noun here]
ergo, passive agressive [tedancy,provocation,agression]
Level up your 3rd world English.
>>699

Live long, and arm yourself.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)18:26 No. 729 ID: cb8d58

>>728
>trying to use an adjective as a noun and defend it

Are you an English teacher?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)19:49 No. 730 ID: e1fd41

>>727
>Both your replies that have the same ID you have now
Confirmation that your family tree intersects with itself multiple times and you live in a compound in Montana/Utah filled with family members.

Go back and look at the two responses in question. Notice how they are replying to two different poster IDs. Notice how one could easily say they're replying to two different people.

Maybe, just maybe, the only one who's an idiot here is you, ammosexual. Maybe, just maybe, you could stop being an idiot if you stopped wasting so much time dreaming of all the ways you can murder your fellow citizens with your arsenal.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/04(Fri)19:53 No. 731 ID: e1fd41
731

File 152545642744.jpg - (94.06KB , 482x784 , Facebook For Dummies 4.jpg )

>>729
You completely missed that he misspelled aggressive. Twice.

So when do you graduate from elementary school?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/05(Sat)05:13 No. 732 ID: 94c1d6

>>729
>>731
>he misspelled aggressive. Twice.
You got me; I'm a failure. At least I can admit when I am wrong.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/05(Sat)07:53 No. 733 ID: e1fd41
733

File 152549959941.jpg - (48.62KB , 750x701 , Anything Is Possible.jpg )

>>732
If that was true you'd have admitted it a long, long time ago.

Well, keep wetting the bed, little "man."


>>
Anonymous 18/05/05(Sat)14:37 No. 734 ID: e1fd41
734

File 152552383591.jpg - (79.68KB , 540x1093 , The Problem With OP.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 18/05/05(Sat)17:45 No. 735 ID: 8d4dbf

>>733
Lol now you're talking shit to the guy who's been on your side this whole time.

Why are you such a dumb aggressive asshole?

-OP (so you're not confused)


>>
Anonymous 18/05/06(Sun)03:16 No. 736 ID: d4e5d3

>>735
>now you're talking shit
This is what I've been trying to get you to understand: This is 7chan, everyone gets shit talked to eventually. If you're going to bleed out your anus and spittle while you scream about it every time, you're not going to make a strong impression.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/06(Sun)06:00 No. 737 ID: e1fd41
737

File 152557923823.webm - (553.58KB , 500x402 , Oh The Irony.webm )

>>735
>your side
You've clearly gotten me confused with one of your alternate personalities.

I think the 2nd amendment deserves to have constraints and limits on it like every other amendment.

And that gun manufacturers attempts over the past couple decades to make it more difficult to regulate the sale of firearms by breaking firearms down into component pieces and selling those components individually does not invalidate the requirement for reasonable constraints to be placed upon them.

The NRA doesn't give two shits about your safety or your rights. You are something for them to package up and sell to their actual customers, the firearm manufacturers. If you purchase a dozen firearms and use one to commit suicide neither the gun manufacturer or the NRA will feel even the slightest twinge of guilt about it. They wrung the money out of you, and that's all that matters to them.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/06(Sun)08:11 No. 738 ID: 8c21f8

>>737
>I think the 2nd amendment deserves to have constraints and limits on it like every other amendment.

1. It does have constraints.
2. Not every amendment has constraints. Can you imagine "constraining" the 13th,15th, or 19th amendment?
3. You're advocating for a known political strategy known as incrementalism.

>And that gun manufacturers attempts over the past couple decades to make it more difficult to regulate the sale of firearms by breaking firearms down into component pieces and selling those components individually does not invalidate the requirement for reasonable constraints to be placed upon them.

You're fabricating motives to demonize something that you're biased against.
If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
People demand customizations.

>The NRA doesn't give two shits about your safety or your rights. You are something for them to package up and sell to their actual customers, the firearm manufacturers. If you purchase a dozen firearms and use one to commit suicide neither the gun manufacturer or the NRA will feel even the slightest twinge of guilt about it. They wrung the money out of you, and that's all that matters to them.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. I don't give a shit about what the NRA or gun manufacturers want.
I want people to have more options to choose from and not less. If someone wants to buy a type of gun, then they should be able to do so.

I'm not sure why you think I would expect a corporation to feel guilty about an individual's choice to abuse their products.

McDonald's doesn't feel guilty about some fatass eating 25 cheeseburgers and dying.
Ford doesn't feel guilty because someone drives a truck off of a cliff.
Pharmaceutical companies don't care that people lie to get prescriptions and abuse their drugs.

Weren't you the one saying people are responsible for their own actions?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/06(Sun)12:17 No. 739 ID: 7c5cd4

>>738
>You're fabricating motives to demonize something that you're biased against.
Says the guy who thinks gun safety restrictions are a conspiracy to repeal the Second Amendment.

> the one saying people are responsible for their own actions
No, that was me. Though to be honest, I'm starting to think you make a case for mandatory institutionalization. I'm not sure you are competent to excercise free will.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/06(Sun)15:46 No. 740 ID: a072fa

>>739
>Says the guy who thinks gun safety restrictions are a conspiracy to repeal the Second Amendment.

Not really a conspiracy, it seems to be an open agenda item that can only be achieved through incremental "common sense" regulations.

Good marketing though "common sense" "safety"

>I'm starting to think you make a case for mandatory institutionalization.

I'm surprised you weren't already in favor of that. You must have grown up in California.
I'm sorry for you living your life thinking you're an enlightened intellectual, while in actuality being an ignorant moron afraid of options and responsibility.

>I'm not sure you are competent to excercise free will.

Yup. Sounds like you're the perfect judge of that. You should be the judge of everything and everyone.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/06(Sun)16:30 No. 741 ID: a45465

>>740
>You should be the judge of everything and everyone.
Well, I have always wanted to found my own sex cult.

You think I could hold it together? I have all my cult quarterlies: bible-belt indoctrination, psych 101, stagecraft, creative writing, choir, a profound misanthropy... All it takes is a few desperate, soft-minded individuals like yourself.

>be achieved
No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment; no one. Trust me. This and other truths I will reveal to you brother, should you choose to accept them. Salvation awaits!


>>
Anonymous 18/05/06(Sun)17:32 No. 742 ID: e04de9

>>741
>No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment; no one.

Doesn't really matter because those "common sense" regulations aren't going to make it past the house.

Luckily, facebook and twitter aren't an accurate representation of the American public.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/07(Mon)15:45 No. 743 ID: 4b9dd1

>>742
>common sense
I very specifically avoided using these terms: >>739
You conflated them >>740
They are not the same thing. Stop being so soft-brained. Don't just clump things together for expedience; think a little.

>regulations aren't going to make it past the house
I wish I could say you are wrong about everything, but you are right about this. Decades ago, the NRA purchased enough shares of Republican Party Inc. to more or less run the board. They may not be chairman, but they get what they want, and now that the Grand Old Sellouts are in power in two branches of the government, the NRA has a 66% share of the federal government's authority at its disposal.

This, to you, is somehow a good thing?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/07(Mon)18:59 No. 744 ID: a870df

>>743
If he wasn't soft brained he wouldn't need firearms.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/07(Mon)21:02 No. 745 ID: 488954

>>743
>think a little

That's rich coming from you.

>Decades ago, the NRA purchased enough shares of Republican Party Inc. to more or less run the board. They may not be chairman, but they get what they want, and now that the Grand Old Sellouts are in power in two branches of the government, the NRA has a 66% share of the federal government's authority at its disposal.

I'd say that's a good conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theories normally require at least some circumstantial evidence.

>This, to you, is somehow a good thing?

I'm no Republican, but if it keeps pseudo intellectual sociopaths like yourself from experimenting on the American Public with your baseless, half hatched theories, then yeah. It's a good thing.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/08(Tue)01:29 No. 747 ID: b973f8
747

File 152573577187.jpg - (52.27KB , 661x501 , zukerburg-as-data.jpg )

>>745
>if it keeps pseudo intellectual sociopaths like yourself from experimenting on the American Public with your baseless, half hatched theories
It doesn't. Where's your conservative god now?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/08(Tue)03:48 No. 748 ID: e1fd41
748

File 152574412365.jpg - (260.56KB , 1500x981 , pot-calling-the-kettle-black.jpg )

>>745
>pseudo intellectual sociopaths
You can try to disassociate yourself from it all you want, but we all know you masturbate to thoughts of children being murdered with automatic weapons.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/08(Tue)09:13 No. 749 ID: 31f360

>>745
>evidence
The Republican party controls both the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States Government; that's 2/3rds, or 66.66~%; it's math. The NRA funds most of their candidates, it's true; look it up ಠ_ಠ/

Do I have proof the money buys them the influence they apparently have on government policy? No, but.... they have the influence, so... where there's smoke there's fire?

They get you for free, think what they'd pay people to say.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/08(Tue)20:12 No. 750 ID: c91c51

>>747
If you're referring to fb or any other tech companies data collection and manipulation of people's opinions, that's a choice.

Nobody is forcing idiots to get an fb. I don't have one.
Federal law is different for obvious reasons.

>>749
>The NRA funds most of their candidates, it's true; look it up

Don't need to. A lot of companies and organizations spend money on campaigns and lobbying, especially when congressional bills can directly affect their industry.

>Do I have proof the money buys them the influence they apparently have on government policy? No

Okay because the way you said they were all bought and paid for decades ago suggests that you were positive that it was a fact.

In reality, they don't spend that much compared to other organizations.

Total campaign contributions last year:
$357,668
ranks 514 of 15,385
Total spent on lobbying:
$5,122,000
ranks 82 of 3,513
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2018

>they have the influence
>They get you for free

Is it really so hard to imagine some people want guns and like the idea of hunting/target practice/home defense outside of some evil organization's master plan to promote things people like?

Is it ridiculous to think people want the option to buy semi automatic weapons without jumping through hoops for the government?

I believe NRA membership is around 3-5 million and gun ownership is around 75 million.

Am I doing the NRA's evil bidding or is it possible an organization exists that holds the same ideals as millions of other people?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/10(Thu)17:59 No. 752 ID: e1fd41
752

File 152596798490.jpg - (55.49KB , 600x736 , Why Are You Yelling.jpg )

>>749
To sum up OP:
1) He repeats all the talking points of the NRA
2) He repeats all the talking points of the GOP
But he isn't an NRA member or a Republican, and everyone who thinks otherwise are sheeple who watch CNN.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/11(Fri)14:59 No. 753 ID: 93cc1b

>>749
Btw you seem reasonable, though we disagree.

I don't know where you're getting these conspiracy theories from about the evil NRA/Republicans forcing their beliefs on people, but these >>752 are the types of rabid morons you encourage with that kind of talk and it makes political discourse near impossible.

>>752
I know a polarized CNN watching dipshit like yourself has never heard of an independent before, but that's what I am.
I'm conservative on this subject, but I'm liberal on several other issues.
For instance, I'm also prochoice.

Just because you need a fanatical party to tell you how to think doesn't mean we all do.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/12(Sat)13:32 No. 754 ID: f387da

>>753
>an independent
>I'm conservative
>I'm liberal
I'll believe you're independent when you stop conflating political faction with personal identity.

>conspiracy theories
It's not a conspiracy theory if Republican Congress gives the NRA what it wants every time, or for that matter any congress. The Democratic party hasn't done better. This is yet another issue in which bipartisianism itself is raping the American people right up their rectums: the two parties would rather blame each other for endangering either the people or the the union or both than do anything meaningful beyond satisfying their lobbyist overlords associates.

What has ended every round of this gun control debate with the status quo? The same stale debates:
Republican (pro NRA) vs. Democrat (also, indirectly, pro NRA)
2nd Amendment (NRA's wet dreams) vs. Common Sense (weaksauce, designed-to-fail "anti-gun" propaganda that ultimately doesn't disarm anyone)
Armed Teachers (When the bullets fly both ways; YAY!) vs. (Armed) Campus Officers (Drop on your swords, blue collar laborers!)
Armed bystanders (A right unused is no right at all; express your 2nd amendment psychosis by humping a lethal weapon everywhere you go...) vs. Voluntary nonarmament (maintain the right to bear arms, but establish a society of peace and law enforcement that preculdes lethal violence and the need to arm oneself in public).

All of these debates are zero sum; they will never get anywhere. The "left" argumentsare too dreamy or too inhumane, while the "right" arguments are all bull-headed and short-sighted. Sooner or later the NRA gets what it wants--whether it takes party-line passing a pro NRA policy through Republican Congress, or setting up a flawed "Democratic" policy predestined for a rousing reversal and shaming one or two presidents down the line.

Ultimately, the NRA thinks they already have the Constitution, and therefore the Supreme Court, on their side. If that were true, it would mean they presently have influence in three branches of the federal government; two through their sponsorship of the Republican Party, and one by their philosophical stance on the Second Amendment. If that Is false, they are just a private organization that openly purchases influence in the US government (they spend the money, they have the influence).


>>
Anonymous 18/05/13(Sun)10:15 No. 758 ID: e1fd41
758

File 152619933781.gif - (473.18KB , 500x280 , NRA-In-Nutshell.gif )

>>753
>CNN
Quick, bring up how it's all somehow Hillary and/or Obama's fault and you can have a GOP/NRA trifecta.

For all your whining about how everyone else is polarized and isn't putting any thought or research into the topic at hand, your inability to come up with something that isn't an NRA or GOP talking point (especially the long discredited ones) really defeats your argument.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/13(Sun)13:32 No. 759 ID: 2e95d1

>>754
>What has ended every round of this gun control debate with the status quo? The same stale debates

Not that I don't think both sides of those arguments are stale and immovable, but I was under the impression they've ended with the the status quo because nobody had any feasible ideas.

>Ultimately, the NRA thinks they already have the Constitution, and therefore the Supreme Court, on their side. If that were true, it would mean they presently have influence in three branches of the federal government; two through their sponsorship of the Republican Party, and one by their philosophical stance on the Second Amendment. If that Is false, they are just a private organization that openly purchases influence in the US government (they spend the money, they have the influence).

That's a leading statement. The NRA does have some influence, but if they had the kind of power you think they do, select fire and full auto would be widely accessible and unregulated.


>>758
No more yous for you until you say something of substance.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/13(Sun)18:51 No. 760 ID: 774a1c

>>759
>yous for you
Perhaps you have noticed the board mechanic to which you are referring is not present. This is because it is failchan faggotry.

>feasible
Compromise is feasible, which is precisely why the false bipartisan dichotomy was established: to prevent compromise. Gun control is just one of many cogs in the bipartisan machine that is squeezing the American people into poverty and early death.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/14(Mon)16:51 No. 761 ID: e1fd41
761

File 152630947861.png - (285.40KB , 500x416 , Serpentine.png )

>>759
One could say the same of you. Instead of actually having an honest discussion, you claim the moral high ground and a completely fictitious alternate history that the NRA came up with then sold you on lock, stock, and barrel.

Keep mentioning CNN and I'll start calling you Russian.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/25(Fri)06:55 No. 779 ID: c4f444

>>760
>This is because it is failchan faggotry.

How would you know?

>Compromise is feasible

I think this thread is proof that it's not.

>bipartisan machine that is squeezing the American people into poverty and early death

That's just untrue. People are more prosperous today than ever before and life expectancy is at an all time high.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/25(Fri)07:19 No. 780 ID: e4f5db
780

File 152722556384.png - (76.56KB , 1280x832 , Preventable_causes_of_death_svg.png )

>>779
>all time high
They murder us, poison us, and fatten us up for the feast and you still take their side.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/25(Fri)08:06 No. 781 ID: ead321
781

File 152722838686.gif - (11.74KB , 432x456 , GUNSTAT.gif )

>>780
It doesn't help that you spend your time lying through your teeth like you think nobody is smart enough to see through your bullshit.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/25(Fri)09:19 No. 782 ID: dcc3b0

>>780
>>781
>two uncited random charts
>first chart from who knows what year shows 3 choice driven lifestyles as the top causes of death

Last time I checked your senator and district rep weren't jamming burgers and cigarettes in your mouth...

>second chart has no information of what it's measuring

If it's firearms deaths, it's totally inaccurate.

Here's some actual figures regarding life expectancy from reputable sources and not twitter.

Average life expectancy 1980: 70 and 77 for males and females, respectively
http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

Average of both sexes as of this year is 78.
http://fortune.com/2018/02/09/us-life-expectancy-dropped-again/

As for your bullshit firearms chart, I don't think countries like Mexico, where thousands are murdered by the cartels and state alike every year, keep accurate records.
In fact, I'd say few "shit hole" countries do.

The truth is things are fine in the US and you want something to crusade against because your life lacks meaning.

Move to another country if things are so terrible in the US, douche bag, then if you can, stop complaining about nothing.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/26(Sat)15:01 No. 788 ID: ead321
788

File 152733967710.gif - (3.29KB , 533x183 , FOR114.gif )

>>782
>Last time I checked your senator and district rep weren't jamming burgers and cigarettes in your mouth
They weren't jamming cocks in your mouth yet you keep shoving them in there.

Stop molesting kids man, it's not cool.

>If it's firearms deaths, it's totally inaccurate.
Actually it is firearm deaths, and it's totally accurate.

Also, how the fuck don't you know how to reverse image search in 2018. Don't make me tell the nursing home to curtail your internet privileges.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/27(Sun)02:35 No. 790 ID: cb1003

>>788
>They weren't jamming cocks in your mouth yet you keep shoving them in there.

Don't confuse Canada with the US, Cucknadien.

>Actually it is firearm deaths, and it's totally accurate.
>Also, how the fuck don't you know how to reverse image search in 2018

I don't need to reverse image search to know you get all your info and "stats" from twitter. You're clearly retarded.


>>
Anonymous 18/05/27(Sun)10:53 No. 791 ID: b5f80f

>>790
>faults other people for not providing sources
>refuses to do any of his own research


>>
Anonymous 18/05/28(Mon)03:57 No. 795 ID: aee119

>>791
I've included sources in every post that has stated a fact, but if you insist.

This >>781 is from the early 90s and conducted by the medical community.

This >>788 is from 1996 and conducted by the Center for Disease Control, ironically the same year they had their funding pulled for the politically charged bias of their studies uncovered by another medical professional.
http://rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html

Also, dickhead forgot to mention it's only for those 15 and under, not all firearm related deaths.

Now aside from the obvious question of why the fuck are medical doctors performing sociological studies, there's the question of why that graph, echoed all over twitter and reddit, specifically stops at age 15 and doesn't include 16 and 17 year olds.

Could it be because the results wouldn't come to the drastic conclusions the researchers wanted?


>>
Anonymous 18/05/31(Thu)20:46 No. 804 ID: ead321
804

File 152779240979.png - (81.18KB , 550x519 , Its All Your Fault.png )

>>795
>ironically the same year they had their funding pulled for the politically charged bias of their studies
Yeah, if you're going to choose a source, try choosing a source that isn't someone's blog of half-insane rantings and conspiracy theories wrapped up in an early 90s web design. But of course you can't do that, because it's all some vast conspiracy of fact-based sourcing that doesn't fit your preconceived narrative of events.

Here's something for you to chew on then run out and buy another gun over:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447376/
>In attacking science, vested interests may also hide their identities by masquerading as grassroots coalitions or by affiliating themselves with neutral organizations
>Vested interests have also found ways to infiltrate professional organizations under the guise of academic neutrality.
>In their efforts to squelch unwanted scientific findings, vested interests have also been known to harass investigators, federal agencies, and even the scientific and policy-making processes themselves.
Good job being an unpaid spokesperson for people you don't even know you're working on their behalf of you complete fucking twat.

So let's sum up:
>Demands fact-based research from every poster
>Supports organizations who have spent 30+ years working to block fact-based research from occurring
>Is shocked, shocked, that sources are hard to come by that aren't some random guy's clearly biased blog where facts get placed in a jar and waved in the general direction of his website
>Instead of blaming his organizations for the lack of information, blames posters because they're the real problem
That about sum it up there brainiac?

I do find it interesting that every time you post you have a different ID though. Kind of fits the narrative that you're sitting on some compound in Montana.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/01(Fri)00:53 No. 805 ID: 1908a9

>>748
The problem with this graphic is that it doesnt even try to provide statistics on usage of pot by race. It makes the assumption that whites, blacks, and latinos all have the same number of pot smokers per racial population, and that those population are evenly distributed across the entire location. You can't reasonably extrapolate racial bias from a univariable analysis.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/01(Fri)06:46 No. 806 ID: 58ff14

>>804
>even when the data are inadequate

Stopped reading there.

>random guy's clearly biased blog

If by that, you mean "Journal Of The Medical Association Of Georgia". Then, yes.

Here's a wild idea, how about you don't buy any guns and others will buy them if they want?

Btw, nazis didn't let people complain and protest constantly.
They murdered them.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/01(Fri)12:53 No. 808 ID: ead321
808

File 152785041636.jpg - (62.48KB , 599x612 , FETS.jpg )

>>806
>Stopped reading there
Now you know how the rest of us feel every time we see something from the delusional world you inhabit.

So let's sum up:
>Demands fact-based research from every poster
>Supports organizations who have spent 30+ years working to block fact-based research from occurring
>Is shocked, shocked, that sources are hard to come by that aren't some random guy's clearly biased blog where facts get placed in a jar and waved in the general direction of his website
>Instead of blaming his organizations for the lack of information, blames posters because they're the real problem

>Journal Of The Medical Association Of Georgia
No, I mean
>Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
They're a group the NRA astroturfed to push their agenda once they realized the truth of the extreme right wing fallacies they had been pushing since the last 70s were about to be exposed as lies told by lying liars and the dimwitted morons who are too scared to think for themselves.

>Here's a wild idea, how about you don't buy any guns and others will buy them if they want?
That's nice and all, but then of course you don't bother to properly secure your guns, go off your rails and start shooting innocent people because pizzagate or some other ridiculous conspiracy, or any other number of equally common events that occur every fucking day.

How about this. You want to buy guns? Take out an insurance policy to cover any and all damages committed by anyone who "somehow" manages to gain access to your guns, forcing you to properly secure your firearms. You know, like that guy from two states over who is willing to pay you top top top top dollar for your gun if you sell it to him the instant he drives over so he can turn around and murder his girlfriend/family/some guy on the internet who pointed out his lack of a scrotum. Or your underage nephew Herbert who opened your top dresser drawer one afternoon while looking for some clean underwear, because you've fucked him in the ass so much hes developed incontinence. You know, those things that never happen to someone who doesn't have a firearm in the house, which is why you need to carry insurance. Of course you will have to declare to the insurance company what guns you have and what conditions you store them in and so on and so forth so that the policy can be adequately drafted to cover your exact shithole and the squalid conditions you live in.

Or you can just stop living in fear. It's really not that hard. The first step is admitting you have a problem. The second step is counseling, either in a group or one-on-one. Eventually you'll find your death woobies don't hold any comfort for you anymore. As an added bonus, you can ship them off to your friends in Russia!


>>
Anonymous 18/06/01(Fri)13:02 No. 810 ID: ead321
810

File 15278509597.jpg - (47.04KB , 500x315 , Bottled Water For Some.jpg )

>>805
>It makes the assumption that whites, blacks, and latinos all have the same number of pot smokers per racial population
You must not get out much. Pot smokers come from all walks of life, they come in all skin shades. All socioeconomic groups.

You, my uptight friend, probably work alongside a few (assuming you're not a trust fund baby who lives in his parents basement). They aren't going to tell you because they know you'll narc them out at the first opportunity, which will end with them getting shot by a trigger happy roid raging rookie intent on getting his first narco conviction.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/01(Fri)13:50 No. 811 ID: 72f69e

>>808
>last 70s

Uhm, what?

>ridiculous conspiracy

lol

>Take out an insurance policy

Eh, luckily the law doesn't listen to morons. Maybe stay off twitter. It's making you retarded.

>Or you can just stop living in fear.

It sounds like you're the one who's scared. Though, odds are you'll never get shot unless you walk around with that tough guy internet persona on you.
They do sell bulletproof vests.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/02(Sat)12:30 No. 813 ID: ead321
813

File 152793543116.jpg - (51.69KB , 640x686 , Offensive offenders being offensive.jpg )

>>811
>Uhm, what?
One misspelled word and you've lost the ability to use reading comprehension to determine the word that was supposed to be in the sentence?

So if I poke around NRA-funded websites long enough will I stumble across the threads you're using to crowdsource your replies from? Or do I need to get one of my Russian coworkers involved in the search?

>Eh, luckily the law doesn't listen to morons.
Sure it does. It listens to you. So long as you keep bleating out the NRA party line.

>It sounds like you're the one who's scared
I'm not the one who's so frightened of schoolchildren that I need to run out and purchase firearms and keep one under every pillow in my home.

Don't look now, but there's a bunch of girl scouts knocking on the door of your bunker. Remember, they don't know its so poorly constructed that knocking could lead to its complete collapse. They're not actually being threatening. You don't have to kill again.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/03(Sun)03:07 No. 815 ID: 7d02f5

>>813
>So if I poke around NRA-funded websites long enough will I stumble across the threads you're using to crowdsource your replies from? Or do I need to get one of my Russian coworkers involved in the search?

Well, anybody who disagrees with your opinions on the subject is obviously an NRA member, so you'll probably want to get Ivan involved since that's half the US.

>So long as you keep bleating out the NRA party line.

People! Keep having options!

>They're not actually being threatening.

Idk. I think I saw the fat one's hand twitch.

I love how "Thomas Violence" doesn't know what an automatic weapon is.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/03(Sun)11:10 No. 816 ID: 2f4cff

>>815
>Attempting to discredit a gun control advocate for their lack of familiarity with guns
No, you may not sir. The technical details don't change the reality of the situation: lots of kids being killed by guns. True, they were semi-automatic weapons, but that obviously does not matter. Semi-autos turn your teenage angst into body counts well enough.

We have all heard enough from you. It is time for you to change your way of thinking or blast that useless brain out of your skull. Every day you live to promote your point of view, innocent people are being killed by your beloved guns.

The United States is a democracy; you could vote for politicians who are willing to stand up for human life, but you chose to vote for politicians who spend every day of their careers on their knees fellating gun manufacturers for nickels. You are responsible for those deaths, personally responsible. You could have done something to help, but you chose to let more people be killed.

Feel that weight, get a gun, and kill yourself--or wake the fuck up and stop parroting the NRA agendas that are turning our streets and our schools into warzones.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/03(Sun)16:30 No. 818 ID: cf5121

>>816
>that obviously does not matter

Yeah, it does. People who are unfamiliar with a subject should not be dictating policy on it. Also, who gives a shit what Aussies think.

>It is time for you to change your way of thinking or blast that useless brain out of your skull
>innocent people
>the children
>get a gun and kill yourself

You can stop acting like you care about safety and people because you're obviously a bastard.

>The United States is a democracy

It's a republic.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/04(Mon)00:15 No. 819 ID: ead321
819

File 15280641194.jpg - (27.76KB , 550x288 , yourwetdream.jpg )

>>818
>People who are unfamiliar with a subject should not be dictating policy on it.
Come down off your fucking high horse you ridiculously smug twat. It's not rocket science or high energy physics its just firearms. Almost everyone born since the 1700s has an understanding of how firearms work and how to use them. You are not smart because you know how to use a gun - everyone knows how to use a gun. That's why children keep getting murdered by other children in school. Because it doesn't take a law degree to understand guns.

Nobody gives a shit about the extremely cryptic ways you like to discuss types of guns, because they're inconsequential to the real world topic of guns. That you think they matter is evidence of just how far down the NRA rabbit hole you've gone.

>You can stop acting like you care about safety and people because you're obviously a bastard
Actually no we actually do care about safety and people, which is why we want a sociopath like you to get it over with and kill yourself already. Given your unhealthy fixation on firearms and inability to think for yourself this is only going to end one of two ways - either you intentionally murder another person or you unintentionally murder another person, after which the result is the same - you eat your gun. We want to skip the murder part, since we actually care about other people, and encourage you get on with the inevitable result. It's better for the rest of us, its better for the people you murder, and, really, its better for you.

>It's a republic
Yeah, we've all heard you recite the pledge of allegiance before, but did you know the republic wasn't included in the original versions of the pledge because nobody got a hard-on about the differences between a representative democracy and a direct democracy until some stupid fucking twat like you came along and forced it to be changed and forced children to recite it until twats like yourself were raised thinking that's just how it always was and nobody but you is capable of remembering the pledge of allegiance. You idiotic autistic anal douchebag.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/04(Mon)03:44 No. 820 ID: d68a6d

>>819
>everyone knows how to use a gun.

You've never used a gun before.

>Actually no we actually do care about safety and people

Suuuuuuuure you do.

>nobody but you is capable of remembering the pledge of allegiance

That's sad.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/04(Mon)18:38 No. 821 ID: 8ab00e

>>820
>You've never used a gun before.
I can't speak for >>819, but I have. I was trained on rifles in the Boy Scouts and learned handguns from a friend and an uncle around age 12. Most of that training: how to handle the gun when not firing it, how to shoot more accurately. An ape could pick one up and fire it.

>Suuuuuuuure you do.
Well, not your safety in particular, but wouldn't you like to have the peace of mind to know that no one is ever going to shoot you? You may find this hard to belive, but there are countries out there where people aren't worried about being shot by criminals, psychopaths, or police--even though people still have their hunting rifles and shotguns or whatever. The US is practially a war zone compared to most first-world countries.

>That's sad.
No, clinging to propaganda as if it were for your benefit is sad.

>>818
>It's a republic.
It's a disaster. It's also a de facto corpoate oligarchy. Get the lobbyists out of DC, then we can have something like a representational democracy.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/05(Tue)00:49 No. 822 ID: a870df

>>821
>It's a disaster. It's also a de facto corpoate oligarchy. Get the lobbyists out of DC, then we can have something like a representational democracy.
Outlawing Citizens United would be a good first step, in which the conservative majority decided that money = speech and corporations = people. It's not enough but it'd a good first step, because without getting rid of CU the cockroaches are just going to keep coming back.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/06(Wed)01:08 No. 823 ID: 01d998

>>821
>An ape could pick one up and fire it.

Yeah. Probably shoot his own dick off.

>wouldn't you like to have the peace of mind to know that no one is ever going to shoot you?

I have grown up and lived most my life in one the most "dangerous" cities in the US. I take public transit and walk around at all times of the day and night.

Not only have I never been afraid for my life, but also have yet to witness a shooting.

>You may find this hard to belive, but there are countries out there where people aren't worried about being shot by criminals, psychopaths, or police

If you're referring to countries in the EU, they probably should worry more before they get stabbed or acid in the face or run over by a truck.

>No, clinging to propaganda as if it were for your benefit is sad.

And that is one of the many reasons no one with any sense will ever take you or your bullshit agenda seriously.

>It's a disaster.

Maybe read less opinion based online articles and visit the US once in awhile, then you might see that you're an idiot.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/06(Wed)21:34 No. 824 ID: ead321
824

File 152831366894.jpg - (160.37KB , 1080x1634 , Your Kind.jpg )

>>823
>Not only have I never been afraid for my life, but also have yet to witness a shooting
And yet you cling to guns for protection.

Its ironic that the lower the crime rate falls the more strident the calls for 2nd amendment absolutism have become.

Also
>Anyone who disagrees with me must not live in the US
Get an original thought inside your head for once, stop letting Russia tell you how to think.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/06(Wed)23:03 No. 825 ID: a870df

>>823
>Yeah. Probably shoot his own dick off.
Here's a word for you to learn.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding

It perfectly encapsulates the entirety of your life experience.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/07(Thu)02:10 No. 826 ID: d124bc

>>823
>Yeah. Probably shoot his own dick off.
I didn't say safely; which was the point, that I will now explicitly explain to you as you obvioulsy cannot make deductions on your own: children kill people, and themselves, with guns because no one needs any training to fire one--they need training to do it properly, and every gun within reach of the hands of a person without that training is a danger to themselves and society.

Anything else you should already know that I could teach you for the upteenth time again?

>Not only have I never been afraid for my life, but also have yet to witness a shooting.
>I take public transit and walk around at all times of the day and night.
Why do you point this out then? Is it dangerous to take public transit and walk around day or night in your area? You wouldn't mention it if you didn't think so. You think so. You live in a society where being in public is presumed to be dangerous. You are afraid for your life; you probably always have been. You're so accustomed to it that you don't even notice.

>they probably should worry more before they get stabbed or acid in the face or run over by a truck.
That's some nice whataboutism you've got there. Any other fallacies you'd like to uselessly spew out while you're at it? As if there are not knives, acid, and trucks everywhere on the damn planet...

>visit the US once in awhile
Ok, I know there's Scouting International, but how many countries' Boy Scouts do you imagine offering rifle training to 12-year-olds?

>>822
>Outlawing Citizens United
Yes, that would be a good start.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/07(Thu)20:14 No. 828 ID: 1b48d1

>>826
>Anything else you should already know that I could teach you for the upteenth time again?

Yeah, why is this debate online solely about guns?

Why has the board of education not recommended common sense safety measures yet while everyone politicizes this?

Such as:
Inside locks on external school doors during class
Direct alarms to the police department, like fire alarms except for shootings, for each school
Locks on classroom doors
Having a neighborhood cop patrol the area, specifically for this kind of incident.
Metal detectors
Having a plan in place.

There doesn't even have to be any guns involved.

>Is it dangerous to take public transit and walk around day or night in your area? You wouldn't mention it if you didn't think so. You think so.

Everyone thinks so. It's the inner-city of Chicago.

>As if there are not knives, acid, and trucks everywhere on the damn planet...

That's kind of the point. That these attacks are unavoidable from a standpoint of controlling the weapons.

Prohibition has never worked here and nobody is going to pay for the cost of background checks and maintaining the largest and most disorganized database of random federal and state felons, anyone who's ever been committed to either a private or public hospital, and anyone declared unfit by a private practitioner.
That's just baseline, too. It doesn't include maintenance, HIPPA compliance, false positives, errors, hardware, accessibility, fees, updates, and a million more issues.
All for a sociological experiment that has no basis in a country like ours.

Might want to try another route than changing a constitutional amendment, if your goal really is to keep people safe.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/08(Fri)05:20 No. 829 ID: 1882fb

>>828
>There doesn't even have to be any guns involved
This is actually a great idea. Why isn't something like this getting done? Probably because no federal or state education budget will ever afford it to them and also because the NRA won't allow any legislation that doesn't make profit for their gun-manufacturing overlords to pass.

>Everyone thinks so.
I know it's really hard for you to hear me that deep in this shit, but people don't have to live that way. Lots of people around the world don't.

>That these attacks are unavoidable from a standpoint of controlling the weapons
So don't even bother trying? That's not going to work either. The point of gun regulation is to reduce the number of people murdered, not do away with violence itself. How many times in this thread have we been over this? There will always been people who are angry, crazy, and stupid; some of them will kill other people and possibly themselves; they don't need guns to do it--but without guns the number of peole killed will be less.

>Prohibition
>changing a constitutional amendment
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME: NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT BUT YOU.

THE FIRST REPLY TO THIS THREAD: >>609
>No reasonable person wants to take it away from you

How many times can we have the same exchange? How many times? How many god damn times?


>>
Anonymous 18/06/08(Fri)07:38 No. 830 ID: 60ac52

>>829
>How many times can we have the same exchange? How many times? How many god damn times?

Until you come up with an idea for gun control that isn't retarded.

Not retarded meaning:
1. Doesn't require mass amounts of people to alter their lives to accommodate it.
2. Doesn't cost an obscene amount of money or require a national database
3. Has proven, effective results in a country like the United States


>>
Anonymous 18/06/09(Sat)01:04 No. 832 ID: a870df

>>830
>like the United States
That would be nice if you would accept places like Australia as being similar to the United States.

But no, you don't. You insist that only the United States is like the United States. And then, in a paradoxical twist of logic that strains incredulity, you demand that we have proof that a particular method works in the United States even though you support organizations like the NRA which actively prevent any and all evidence-based testing on the smallest of possible scales. That means there is no way of implementing the scheme you demand we implement.

At this point I'm fairly certain you're either a troll or a complete moron. Possibly both, but the more you write the more it's coming down on the latter.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/09(Sat)12:26 No. 833 ID: b0d4fc

>>832
>That would be nice if you would accept places like Australia as being similar to the United States.

Ahahahahahaha no

>you support organizations like the NRA

You keep saying that, but since I'm not an NRA member and pay nothing to them, I'd say they're supporting me at this point.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/09(Sat)14:09 No. 834 ID: 5cd1d7

>>833
>I'd say they're supporting me at this point.
I wouldn't put it past them to hire a few trolls to spread their ideology on the Internet. This is a post-truth world, and whether we like it or not 7chan is a social media platform. The Russians' postbots stopped by to spread alt-rightism in 2016. This kind of propaganda campaign is becoming the norm.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/09(Sat)22:48 No. 835 ID: 2dac6b

>>834
>I wouldn't put it past them to hire a few trolls to spread their ideology on the Internet.

They don't need to.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/10(Sun)01:57 No. 837 ID: 822fd0

>>835
That doesn't mean they wouldn't, and as this thread clearly demonstrates there are still some audiences not yet receptive to the inane bullshit that is their message.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/10(Sun)13:56 No. 838 ID: 10a142

So let's sum up.

OP lives in Chicago. He gets taunted by his extremist right wing online peers about not being able to buy a gun. So he uses this thread to vent his irrational emotional frustration about not being able to be an equal member of the group of deplorables he calls friend.

I suggest OP move across the border to Gary, Indiana. No gun laws there and because of that it's an absolute paradise.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/10(Sun)15:46 No. 839 ID: 23171c

>>838
>extremist right wing online peers

Lol you guys just can't accept someone with different views, can you?
It's really intolerant and pathetic.

So, let's sum up. You're an idiot.

You can buy guns in Chicago.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/11(Mon)10:48 No. 840 ID: 10a142

>>839
>Lol you guys just can't accept someone with different views, can you?
Different views, sure.

Your views aren't different. They're asinine. That's why you get mocked.

Maybe some day you'll grow up and find a pair of balls someone's wife discarded. Until then you'll just keep parroting the same old tired debunked bullshit because you're too afraid to think for yourself.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/11(Mon)18:46 No. 841 ID: e41b6d

>>840
>debunked

Where?

>think for yourself

I am. Can you say the same?


>>
Anonymous 18/06/12(Tue)18:22 No. 844 ID: 9c72ea

>>841
Oh the miracle of the Internet: no argument ever need be lost.

No matter how many times you are proven wrong or by how many different people or in however many different ways, you can just pick right up where you left off and keep going on.

Ammosexuality isn't going to win here; accept it and find something better to do with your time--like swallowing a .45 GAP.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/13(Wed)06:32 No. 845 ID: 70c286

>>844
>proven

Unfortunately, your sad feelings aren't proof of anything.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/14(Thu)00:40 No. 846 ID: a870df

>>845
Your constant IP changes are proof that you're a paranoid android.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/14(Thu)08:18 No. 848 ID: 89d2b1
848

File 152895711284.jpg - (39.03KB , 492x311 , Before And After.jpg )

>833
>Ahahahahahaha no
I can't help but go back to this.

You demand that any solution implemented be first proven as being workable in the United States.

You further demand that no solutions be implemented here unless they meet your first demand.

And finally you don't think that any country is similar enough to the United States to qualify as an example.

In other words, based on your logic, there is no solution capable of meeting your approval.

Not even your NRA wet dream solutions meet your demands so I really don't understand why the fuck you're even trying to propose them.

Which is why we all know you're getting money from the NRA, you disingenuous idiotic manchild who only graduated from K12 by having daddy bribe his teachers.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/14(Thu)17:53 No. 850 ID: 9fbf2d

>>848
>And finally you don't think that any country is similar enough to the United States to qualify as an example.

I didn't say that. I said Australia is nothing like the United States.
1. It's an island with no inland civilization or neighboring countries.
2. It's a democratic constitutional monarchy that still recognizes the Queen of England as the Queen of Australia.
3. A million other differences.

Two countries off the top of my head that more closely resemble the US are Brazil and RSA.
How's gun control going there?

>Not even your NRA wet dream solutions meet your demands so I really don't understand why the fuck you're even trying to propose them.
>Which is why we all know you're getting money from the NRA

You must be special


>>
Anonymous 18/06/14(Thu)20:21 No. 851 ID: a870df
851

File 152900046463.jpg - (54.31KB , 562x437 , No.jpg )

>>850
>Two countries off the top of my head that more closely resemble the US are Brazil and RSA.
A stupid statement demands a stupid meme.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/14(Thu)21:31 No. 853 ID: f871fd

>>851
I said more closely resembles the US, not identical.

Ethnically diverse, urban and rural, independent republics, mainland countries with large populations and economies.

If you think Australia is like the US, you're retarded.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/15(Fri)04:49 No. 854 ID: 94acd6
854

File 152903094939.jpg - (35.43KB , 240x160 , op winning an argument.jpg )

>>850
>special
Says the guy with the argumentative skills of a four year old.

This is part of a series on covering your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming: >>684 >>709


>>
Anonymous 18/06/17(Sun)12:42 No. 856 ID: 47101f

>>854
If that were the case, I'd just be typing SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED over and over again.

You're welcome.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/17(Sun)17:23 No. 857 ID: c259d7

>>856
That's not what you've been doing through this entire thread?


>>
Anonymous 18/06/18(Mon)16:18 No. 858 ID: 91e960

>>857
He's special


>>
Anonymous 18/06/20(Wed)14:18 No. 861 ID: 236f1f

>>857
Shall not!
>>858
You're a literal retard.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/21(Thu)01:33 No. 862 ID: a870df

>>857
Its not his fault. If he deviates from his script he won't get paid.



[Return]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason