Americans and their love of firearms

yseJ

Empire strikes back
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
44,255
Reputation
2,516
Daps
63,584
Reppin
The Yay
Sir, can you tell me what is going on in Afghanistan and occurred in Iraq?

Did the enemy over there have any Helicopters, Artillery or any other advanced weaponry?

Iraq had advanced weaponry and their traditional army went down in 3 weeks. Meanwhile, the insurgent forces, armed with simple arms and improvised devices, fought for 9 years and killed a lot of people.

Did you and the others here forget about that?
helicopters and artillery arent advanced weapons

also, US had to be cute there. we cant use WMDs against them because the world will protest, rightfully so.

if WE are being INVADED, best believe there will be WMDs going both ways.
and if we LOSE with WMDs, that means the other side will have better WMDs.

in which case, you and your handgun will be a minor nuisance- a fukking tiny mosquito- to anyone with a nuke

theres a reason no big world power with advanced WMDs and advanced chemical weapons has been invaded yet. because it will trigger a nuclear winter. there are small exceptions like iraq but they have clearly not possessed WMDs (and iraq is not really a world power like that) nor would they be a match for us if they tried to do anything. wed just annihilate their whole country.
 

yseJ

Empire strikes back
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
44,255
Reputation
2,516
Daps
63,584
Reppin
The Yay
as such the ONLY plausible legal use of guns in our american society is to protect against burglars.

so let the gun stay at your house, with gps on it or some shyt :laugh: if it leaves your house you get a misdemeanor or something.

theres zero reason for you to carry your gun anywhere in public.
 
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
4,784
Reputation
175
Daps
5,079
Reppin
thetown to global
Outlawing guns won't solve anything. Honest people will not have 'em and criminals and people with the intent to use them will still get their hands on them.

It is a fukked up world, people should have the right to protect themselves.

:manny:
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
69,055
Reputation
3,719
Daps
108,867
Reppin
Tha Land
Outlawing guns won't solve anything. Honest people will not have 'em and criminals and people with the intent to use them will still get their hands on them.

It is a fukked up world, people should have the right to protect themselves.

:manny:

This may be the case short term. But eventually guns would become scarce and too expensive for your everyday criminal. I'm not saying crime would go down but gun violence would.

And to the people who say they need guns for protection. There are very limited circumstances in which you would/should use a gun to protect yourself. If someone pulls a gun on you, your not John Wayne you won't be able to get out of the way of his gun, get to your gun and shoot him before he shoots you. That's why you don't here too many stories of someone shooting a gunman before he shoots. But you here allot of stories about robberies and murders.
 

Primetime21

This my city
Supporter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
44,274
Reputation
7,304
Daps
168,303
Reppin
Lemongrass, cherries, alkaline water
yeah lets not act like we would be throwing and swinging arrows,swords,spears etc at people :snoop:

Imagine someone storming a movie theatre armed with a bow and arrows, think about how quickly and easy it would be for a group of people to contain that individual. Now picture the same scenario only this time that person has automatic army guns. Now read your post again and look at how fukking stupid you are
 

King Sun

Big Boss
Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
30,763
Reputation
3,173
Daps
73,485
Reppin
323,904,480,817,614
Imagine someone storming a movie theatre armed with a bow and arrows, think about how quickly and easy it would be for a group of people to contain that individual. Now picture the same scenario only this time that person has automatic army guns. Now read your post again and look at how fukking stupid you are

you're missing my whole point but whatevers :manny:
 

Primetime21

This my city
Supporter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
44,274
Reputation
7,304
Daps
168,303
Reppin
Lemongrass, cherries, alkaline water
you're missing my whole point but whatevers :manny:


I know what your point is fukkin clown. "Weapons are weapons, if there weren't guns there'd be x, y, and z". MY point is guns kill masses quicker and more efficient than anything you named. Nutjobs with guns, anybody with a gun is far more dangerous than Robin Hood or mulan
 

King Sun

Big Boss
Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
30,763
Reputation
3,173
Daps
73,485
Reppin
323,904,480,817,614
I know what your point is fukkin clown. "Weapons are weapons, if there weren't guns there'd be x, y, and z". MY point is guns kill masses quicker and more efficient than anything you named. Nutjobs with guns, anybody with a gun is far more dangerous than Robin Hood or mulan

by your logic someone is going to automatically be prone to stop someone swinging a sword around than a gun? which is feasible but you just assume that someone would be brave enough to stop them :umad:
 

newworldafro

DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
50,158
Reputation
4,820
Daps
112,950
Reppin
In the Silver Lining
After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks - chicagotribune.com

After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks

Louis Charbonneau

Reuters

5:50 p.m. CST, November 7, 2012

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.
U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

'MONTHS AWAY' FROM DEAL?

Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.

Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution.

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

Britain's U.N. mission said on its Twitter feed it hoped that the March negotiations would yield the final text of a treaty. Such a pact would then need to be ratified by the individual signatories before it could enter into force.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms treaty and had endorsed Romney.

The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written
.

2nd Amendment in the bushes???
Speak on it................ :whoo:
 

RicanFury

Come Home With Me
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
3,923
Reputation
125
Daps
4,103
Reppin
a BRONX Slum by I-87 NORTH
One more time for you idiots and foreigners:

The 2nd Amendment is there so you can protect yourself against your own government if it need be. It has nothing to with criminals, criminal activity, or any other crap. State governments extend the right to use the firearm to protect yourself, home and property.

JESUS fukkING CHRIST. Read a fukking book or take 15 minutes to read a wiki or something.

fukking a$$hole Canadian Falafel eating motherfukker.

:myman:
 
Top