Fail more faggot, Virginia Tech was a LIBERAL-approved GUN FREE ZONE where people could not protect themselves. Also, the chink coming to the U.S. is also due to butthurt liberals changing our immigration policy in 1965. You are a gigantic eurofaggot.
This thread is now about blaming liberals for Virginia Tech.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 10:57
>>2 Wow you are dumber than your average gunfag. You see a school getting shot up and your immediate reaction is: \"hmm, I think the solution is to give guns to everyone lolz dumb libfags.\"
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 10:58
Also, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html
He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun and that wouldn't have interfered with the 2nd Amendment.
Who did are liberals (baaaaawww let's have gun free zone so people would die more easily), who I hold responsible for not allowing the students to defend themselves from the crazy chink who's not supposed to be here.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 10:58
>>3
Hahahahahaha. OH WOW it was a gun free zone. That helped, didn't it libfag?
All you gun-grabbers have to do is repeal or counter the Second Amendment, which requires that you first amend the US Constitution in the first place. Get your proposed amendment through the House and Senate, and get at least 38 states to sign it, and like fucking MAGIC, it will be true.
Wha? What's that? You say that that's too much work for you, and you prefer to rely on activist judges to enforce unconstitutional laws? Yes, that seems to be about your speed, Libfag.
THE FUNNY THING IS, LIBERALS STILL WONDER WHY THEY'RE HATED.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-06 19:29
Oslo Norway has a per capita rape ratio 6 times higher than that of New York City.
>>10
Most eurofags are rapemeat. The exception to this rule is the Swiss. Eurofags often don't even have the right to own the tools they need to keep themselves from BECOMING rapemeat.
Also, chinks have a lot less testosterone than Whites and niggers. Perhaps gun control is good for them, but Switzerland has essentially the same crime as Japan (even less I think), so your point is moot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 16:07
>>15
A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Republic of Ireland (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]
hey bantards, in your theoretical gun ban, would police and military still have guns?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 16:41
>>19
Of course they want authorities to have guns and the rest to be fucked -- they're aiming for a fucking socialist bloated nanny state that would take care of everyone from cradle to grave. Personal responsibility is a joke to them.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 17:33
what would be the point of banning guns if the police are going to have them? If the police carry guns then so will criminals - its called escalation.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 17:55
What would be the point of banning guns if the criminals aren't going to hand them in? If the police don't carry guns then criminals will still use their guns and without fear - it's called the real world.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 19:54
so let me get this straight, you can compare two countries if it is in favour of no gun regulation, but not if it is in favour of gun regulation. Good thing we got that set straight.
lulz gunfags
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 20:31
>>23
So let me get this straight, you actually brag about the government running your life to the extent that you have no right to bear arms, eurofag?
Also, Switzerland is about as low as Japan at crime rates and they have guns and more crime-prone minorities than Japan. Total win, gtfo.
lulz nannystatefags
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 20:35
>>23 Also, you ignored the whole article I linked to. It's ok, I didn't expect more from you.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 22:15
Obviously guns make it easier to kill people, however I prefer to live in a world where a disabled or elderly person is just as capable of defending themselves as their attacker.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-09 5:22
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
More guns = less crime. We should encourage gun ownership, not discourage it. Imagine how much the rape rate would fall if we passed a national law mandating that ALL females keep and bear arms for protection (such as a small handgun).
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-09 5:55
>>27 that article is bs and biased. lulz.
"The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States."
Even if the crime rate was higher, I'd still prefer to have my wallet stolen then to be shot in the face.
Gg libfag. Even Dan Rather (lol) says you are wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-09 8:05
>>28
1.It would be easier to steal your wallet if you were shot in the face first. As long as you're a willing victim you have to accept whatever they do to you.
2. England is not the United States. We didn't receive our rights from the government(crown), we granted the government certain powers "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare".
3. If you don't trust your citizens with a gun why would you trust them with a vote?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-09 9:03
>>30
1. True, but what is your point are you saying guns are good because they make commiting robberies/theft easier? They aren't going to shoot me in the face if they don't have a gun. no guns = no face shooting. And don't say it isn't possible - they're already talked about Japan.
2. ok
3. If 1 in a 1000 people who own guns accidentally shoot someone, that's a lot worse than 1 citizen in a 1000 making the ``wrong'' vote.
"They aren't going to shoot me in the face if they don't have a gun. no guns = no face shooting."
Yeah, because if we ban something it means nobody will have it, right? (see: drug war)
Name:
Haruko2007-10-10 3:44
Then it's hilarious
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 4:15
>>35 ideally yes, practically no but we can reduce the amount of guns massively depending on the controls put in place. making the chances of me being shot in the face approach 0%.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 4:47
>>37
No you can't. Criminals will still get guns. Even if you COULD, it doesn't matter because nobody in America supports libfags like you. Guns will likely never be banned in America to the extent you want. Sux2bu libfag.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 9:09
Gun ban wont happen in america because of the right to bear arms in the constitution.