lol you didn’t even read my goddamn post, you just spat the talking points at me without even doing me the courtesy of understanding what i was saying in the first place. rude as fuck, pinky.

yeah i think charles whitman (sniper rifle) and james holmes (shotgun) might like a word with you

handguns mostly kill poor minorities in racially segregated areas starved of public resources. this is not a thing either party has any intention of ever giving a fuck about. we only talk about gun control after a group of white people get shot in a freak tragedy with a spooky photogenic long rifle, because as…

the drippy pathos here is a little over the top imo

your argument can be invalid and you can be using the incorrect words for things at the same time. these can be two separate issues.

these embarrassing meltdowns are not conducive to a rational discussion. mass shootings don’t rate on the grand scale of tragic and unnecessary deaths in america. they aren’t even representative of the majority of homicides or gun deaths. people don’t go full goddamn blithering rage-blind retard over 50,000 people…

the people in vegas and texas are dead whether you throw a moronic shitfit over a semantics quibble on the internet, too. you can’t bring them back by being an embarrassing fuckwad. your retarded rage will not save lives.

the vague, politically-loaded term you’re reaching for is “assault weapon.”

you said you’re an attorney? lol. you ignoring the second part of 2a is just as disingenuous as them ignoring the first part. this whole discussion is essentially mental masturbation. the supreme court reads it differently, therefore it’s what they say it is. “well-regulated militia” and “the right of the people” are…

“We are 100% capable of not shooting innocent adults and children.”

i know you mean bmi but i keep picturing somebody washing out of the service because they failed to maintain their height

the mentally ill aren’t more prone to violence than any other demographic. people who have been 5150'd are already banned from firearm ownership on a federal level. stripping the “mentally ill” (and what exactly does mentally ill mean to you?) of gun rights is discriminatory, unconstitutional and absurdly…

the supreme court parses the grammar differently than you do and thus the right to own firearms for self defense is protected by the constitution, since their interpretation matters and yours doesn’t. quit mansplaining your non sequiter at people, it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

ok im mad at the old guy now what

for one thing “tries to justify” implies a kind of pearl clutching outrage that doesn’t really reflect the tone of the article and for a second thing lol at manson’s stock apology and boring gun opinions

yeah if there’s one thing the us military is really good at defeating its guerrilla fighters with small arms and improvised explosives lol. it’s not like we’ve consistently lost every single war we’ve ever fought for the last 70 years or nothing.

this seems like a common sense response until you realize that the american military hasn’t won a war in over half a century and has repeatedly gotten stymied by illiterate farmers with ak47s and improvised explosive devices. the point of armed resistance isn’t to “defeat” the government, it’s to make your community…

it has already been done. it’s a federal law, has been for 49 years.

it’s already illegal at a federal level for people convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse from owning firearms.

ironically the democrat vision of incremental gun control is a massive loser issue that will prevent your party from getting into office.