Quantcast

American Rights

52 posts
Do you believe that we should change the 2nd Amendment in the United States Constitution? Personally I don't think we should because at the end of the article it specifically states "the right of the people shall not be infringed" and I just wanted to get everybody's take on the situation
nope what ever it was you said i dont understand what you said
then don't comment
nope whatever it was you just posted
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Finally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
i wonder what she posted
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
I've met 3rd Graders with more intelligence than many of the people on the forums.
(Yes, I'm talking about you two, 'mike mazon' and 'the awesome')
I do like to cite two statistics. It's illegal to own a gun in England and they have the highest violent crime rate in Europe. Meanwhile in Switzerland every male over 19 routinely carry around assault rifles and the crime rate is stupidly low. The gun ownership rate would be higher than the US if it wasn't for the fact that you don't really need multiple guns when you have military-grade assault rifles that can do everything for you. Neither forcing everyone to have assault rifles with them at all times nor getting rid of guns will solve the murder problems that we have in our nation though.

The problem isn't the guns: it's the people that own them. More effort should be done trying to find out who are problem people and what could be done to help them.

I do think people that own guns should be required to keep stricter control over their weapons and keep them from falling into the hands of people that aren't mentally capable of using weapons in a legal manner. For example, requiring locked boxes or safes of some sort to hold their guns wouldn't be a bad idea... It would be easy to break through but all you can really do is add an extra layer of frustration. Also, in most places, people aren't required to report stolen guns. Why aren't we requiring it? That's an easy extra step...plus reporting it stolen can at least throw some blame off the owner of a stolen murder weapon.
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.
Originally posted by Generic NameI do like to cite two statistics. It's illegal to own a gun in England and they have the highest violent crime rate in Europe. Meanwhile in Switzerland every male over 19 routinely carry around assault rifles and the crime rate is stupidly low. The gun ownership rate would be higher than the US if it wasn't for the fact that you don't really need multiple guns when you have military-grade assault rifles that can do everything for you. Neither forcing everyone to have assault rifles with them at all times nor getting rid of guns will solve the murder problems that we have in our nation though.

The problem isn't the guns: it's the people that own them. More effort should be done trying to find out who are problem people and what could be done to help them.

I do think people that own guns should be required to keep stricter control over their weapons and keep them from falling into the hands of people that aren't mentally capable of using weapons in a legal manner. For example, requiring locked boxes or safes of some sort to hold their guns wouldn't be a bad idea... It would be easy to break through but all you can really do is add an extra layer of frustration. Also, in most places, people aren't required to report stolen guns. Why aren't we requiring it? That's an easy extra step...plus reporting it stolen can at least throw some blame off the owner of a stolen murder weapon.
you are exactly right on every thing except the fact that we only need military grade assault rifles
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Originally posted by Generic NameI do like to cite two statistics. It's illegal to own a gun in England and they have the highest violent crime rate in Europe. Meanwhile in Switzerland every male over 19 routinely carry around assault rifles and the crime rate is stupidly low. The gun ownership rate would be higher than the US if it wasn't for the fact that you don't really need multiple guns when you have military-grade assault rifles that can do everything for you. Neither forcing everyone to have assault rifles with them at all times nor getting rid of guns will solve the murder problems that we have in our nation though.

The problem isn't the guns: it's the people that own them. More effort should be done trying to find out who are problem people and what could be done to help them.

I do think people that own guns should be required to keep stricter control over their weapons and keep them from falling into the hands of people that aren't mentally capable of using weapons in a legal manner. For example, requiring locked boxes or safes of some sort to hold their guns wouldn't be a bad idea... It would be easy to break through but all you can really do is add an extra layer of frustration. Also, in most places, people aren't required to report stolen guns. Why aren't we requiring it? That's an easy extra step...plus reporting it stolen can at least throw some blame off the owner of a stolen murder weapon.

You can own a gun in England, you just need a license.
Oh. Isn't it still a lot harder to get guns there then most places. I know it's still much more strict that anything in Switzerland. (You don't even need a license to carry one there and so the numbers about gun ownership there are kinda sketchy). So it's still a function of the condition of the people rather than the existence of guns.

Another example, Mexico. Mexico has much stricter gun laws than in the US and I think the phrase "drug wars" should tell you everything you need to know about how effective they are.
Originally posted by Generic NameOh. Isn't it still a lot harder to get guns there then most places. I know it's still much more strict that anything in Switzerland. (You don't even need a license to carry one there and so the numbers about gun ownership there are kinda sketchy). So it's still a function of the condition of the people rather than the existence of guns.

Another example, Mexico. Mexico has much stricter gun laws than in the US and I think the phrase "drug wars" should tell you everything you need to know about how effective they are.


It's quite hard, and you can't get anything military-grade anyways.
my brother mike mazon is dumb and yes i agree
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by Awesomemy brother mike mazon is dumb and yes i agree

*cough*mustruninthefamily*cough*
Hm? Did someone say something?
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term

I was simply stating that the only pure uses of guns were hunting (or target shooting) and defense; I was not making a point about the Constitution. You are "invalid and pretty stupid" for believing otherwise.

Also, I don't really care if a few facts about the president's past aren't fully known by the public, as long as he runs the country well. There are agencies that can track down the entirety of information about a person given just a drop of blood, so I think the CIA is likely to know about the president's past, and if a large group of smart people allow him to hold his position, so should the general public.

As for the third term proposal, from what I heard it is being pushed by a Congressman, not Obama himself. It has also received support from many other people with government positions, and some past presidents. The three-term idea doesn't even seem that bad to me; if enough people vote for him in a third run, why not give him the third term?
your annoying some times fbg$
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term

I was simply stating that the only pure uses of guns were hunting (or target shooting) and defense; I was not making a point about the Constitution. You are "invalid and pretty stupid" for believing otherwise.

Also, I don't really care if a few facts about the president's past aren't fully known by the public, as long as he runs the country well. There are agencies that can track down the entirety of information about a person given just a drop of blood, so I think the CIA is likely to know about the president's past, and if a large group of smart people allow him to hold his position, so should the general public.

As for the third term proposal, from what I heard it is being pushed by a Congressman, not Obama himself. It has also received support from many other people with government positions, and some past presidents. The three-term idea doesn't even seem that bad to me; if enough people vote for him in a third run, why not give him the third term?
Obama has his "minions" who work to keep his secrets protected from the public. and im sorry that you are being proved wrong (by a teenager btw) but no, hunting and defense are NOT the only pure uses of guns. and if you didn't watch the news on election night, you should know that Romney won the popular vote. the liberals cheated and only certain news channels show it. if you watch things like MSM, you wont get the entire truth. but I would like to know what news channel you follow
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by Awesomeyour annoying some times fbg$

*you're, and thank you, annoying fool! ^_^

Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term

I was simply stating that the only pure uses of guns were hunting (or target shooting) and defense; I was not making a point about the Constitution. You are "invalid and pretty stupid" for believing otherwise.

Also, I don't really care if a few facts about the president's past aren't fully known by the public, as long as he runs the country well. There are agencies that can track down the entirety of information about a person given just a drop of blood, so I think the CIA is likely to know about the president's past, and if a large group of smart people allow him to hold his position, so should the general public.

As for the third term proposal, from what I heard it is being pushed by a Congressman, not Obama himself. It has also received support from many other people with government positions, and some past presidents. The three-term idea doesn't even seem that bad to me; if enough people vote for him in a third run, why not give him the third term?
Obama has his "minions" who work to keep his secrets protected from the public. and im sorry that you are being proved wrong (by a teenager btw) but no, hunting and defense are NOT the only pure uses of guns. and if you didn't watch the news on election night, you should know that Romney won the popular vote. the liberals cheated and only certain news channels show it. if you watch things like MSM, you wont get the entire truth. but I would like to know what news channel you follow

I don't watch the news, most channels have some form of bias. I use MULTIPLE internet sources, to get collective information. How about you just go complain to your braindead conspirator groups, because your arguments are just getting pathetic. I am not being proved wrong at all, (I'm a teenager too, by the way), I am just having random false pieces of information with no backup or proof thrown at me by someone who doesn't understand how the government works. How about you give me some REAL information, such as:
1. What Obama is 'hiding'
2. What other pure uses of guns there are
3. What I'm being 'lied to' about

You know how a lot of magazines gossip about celebrities, but it turns out to be false? You are basically believing the government equivalent of that. Honestly, I think America should revert back to the time when there were more requirements to vote, so people like you can't bleed all over the ballot. The only thing that keeps me ensured about the current system is that citizens don't precisely get the final vote, the state officials do.
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by Awesomeyour annoying some times fbg$

*you're, and thank you, annoying fool! ^_^

Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term

I was simply stating that the only pure uses of guns were hunting (or target shooting) and defense; I was not making a point about the Constitution. You are "invalid and pretty stupid" for believing otherwise.

Also, I don't really care if a few facts about the president's past aren't fully known by the public, as long as he runs the country well. There are agencies that can track down the entirety of information about a person given just a drop of blood, so I think the CIA is likely to know about the president's past, and if a large group of smart people allow him to hold his position, so should the general public.

As for the third term proposal, from what I heard it is being pushed by a Congressman, not Obama himself. It has also received support from many other people with government positions, and some past presidents. The three-term idea doesn't even seem that bad to me; if enough people vote for him in a third run, why not give him the third term?
Obama has his "minions" who work to keep his secrets protected from the public. and im sorry that you are being proved wrong (by a teenager btw) but no, hunting and defense are NOT the only pure uses of guns. and if you didn't watch the news on election night, you should know that Romney won the popular vote. the liberals cheated and only certain news channels show it. if you watch things like MSM, you wont get the entire truth. but I would like to know what news channel you follow

I don't watch the news, most channels have some form of bias. I use MULTIPLE internet sources, to get collective information. How about you just go complain to your braindead conspirator groups, because your arguments are just getting pathetic. I am not being proved wrong at all, (I'm a teenager too, by the way), I am just having random false pieces of information with no backup or proof thrown at me by someone who doesn't understand how the government works. How about you give me some REAL information, such as:
1. What Obama is 'hiding'
2. What other pure uses of guns there are
3. What I'm being 'lied to' about

You know how a lot of magazines gossip about celebrities, but it turns out to be false? You are basically believing the government equivalent of that. Honestly, I think America should revert back to the time when there were more requirements to vote, so people like you can't bleed all over the ballot. The only thing that keeps me ensured about the current system is that citizens don't precisely get the final vote, the state officials do.
1. Obama is trying to hide the fact that he was born in Kenya
2. Militia
3. you are being lied to about multiple governmental issues such as drones killing American citizens
and I would honestly like to know how old you are
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by Awesomeyour annoying some times fbg$

*you're, and thank you, annoying fool! ^_^

Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term

I was simply stating that the only pure uses of guns were hunting (or target shooting) and defense; I was not making a point about the Constitution. You are "invalid and pretty stupid" for believing otherwise.

Also, I don't really care if a few facts about the president's past aren't fully known by the public, as long as he runs the country well. There are agencies that can track down the entirety of information about a person given just a drop of blood, so I think the CIA is likely to know about the president's past, and if a large group of smart people allow him to hold his position, so should the general public.

As for the third term proposal, from what I heard it is being pushed by a Congressman, not Obama himself. It has also received support from many other people with government positions, and some past presidents. The three-term idea doesn't even seem that bad to me; if enough people vote for him in a third run, why not give him the third term?
Obama has his "minions" who work to keep his secrets protected from the public. and im sorry that you are being proved wrong (by a teenager btw) but no, hunting and defense are NOT the only pure uses of guns. and if you didn't watch the news on election night, you should know that Romney won the popular vote. the liberals cheated and only certain news channels show it. if you watch things like MSM, you wont get the entire truth. but I would like to know what news channel you follow

I don't watch the news, most channels have some form of bias. I use MULTIPLE internet sources, to get collective information. How about you just go complain to your braindead conspirator groups, because your arguments are just getting pathetic. I am not being proved wrong at all, (I'm a teenager too, by the way), I am just having random false pieces of information with no backup or proof thrown at me by someone who doesn't understand how the government works. How about you give me some REAL information, such as:
1. What Obama is 'hiding'
2. What other pure uses of guns there are
3. What I'm being 'lied to' about

You know how a lot of magazines gossip about celebrities, but it turns out to be false? You are basically believing the government equivalent of that. Honestly, I think America should revert back to the time when there were more requirements to vote, so people like you can't bleed all over the ballot. The only thing that keeps me ensured about the current system is that citizens don't precisely get the final vote, the state officials do.
1. Obama is trying to hide the fact that he was born in Kenya
2. Militia
3. you are being lied to about multiple governmental issues such as drones killing American citizens
and I would honestly like to know how old you are

1. Plenty of information has been released showing that he was born in Hawaii. Even if he does somehow turn out to be born in Kenya, that hasn't changed his ability to lead the country. A good leader doesn't become evil because he was born somewhere else.

2. Military aren't standard citizens, and standard citizens are whose rights are being protected by the Constitution. Many would even consider the military force 'defense', which I said was a reason for gun use. Of course the people fighting for our country are going to be armed with guns, what else will we give them, swords? There is a reason powerful rifles are considered military-grade, you know. Instead of arguing just to argue, try making a real point.

3. 14, and I haven't even heard of these drone strikes killing Americans, therefore I am not being 'lied to'.

On a side note, what is this MSM you have been talking about? I Googled it, and I doubt you mean Methylsulfonylmethane
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by Awesomeyour annoying some times fbg$

*you're, and thank you, annoying fool! ^_^

Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term

I was simply stating that the only pure uses of guns were hunting (or target shooting) and defense; I was not making a point about the Constitution. You are "invalid and pretty stupid" for believing otherwise.

Also, I don't really care if a few facts about the president's past aren't fully known by the public, as long as he runs the country well. There are agencies that can track down the entirety of information about a person given just a drop of blood, so I think the CIA is likely to know about the president's past, and if a large group of smart people allow him to hold his position, so should the general public.

As for the third term proposal, from what I heard it is being pushed by a Congressman, not Obama himself. It has also received support from many other people with government positions, and some past presidents. The three-term idea doesn't even seem that bad to me; if enough people vote for him in a third run, why not give him the third term?
Obama has his "minions" who work to keep his secrets protected from the public. and im sorry that you are being proved wrong (by a teenager btw) but no, hunting and defense are NOT the only pure uses of guns. and if you didn't watch the news on election night, you should know that Romney won the popular vote. the liberals cheated and only certain news channels show it. if you watch things like MSM, you wont get the entire truth. but I would like to know what news channel you follow

I don't watch the news, most channels have some form of bias. I use MULTIPLE internet sources, to get collective information. How about you just go complain to your braindead conspirator groups, because your arguments are just getting pathetic. I am not being proved wrong at all, (I'm a teenager too, by the way), I am just having random false pieces of information with no backup or proof thrown at me by someone who doesn't understand how the government works. How about you give me some REAL information, such as:
1. What Obama is 'hiding'
2. What other pure uses of guns there are
3. What I'm being 'lied to' about

You know how a lot of magazines gossip about celebrities, but it turns out to be false? You are basically believing the government equivalent of that. Honestly, I think America should revert back to the time when there were more requirements to vote, so people like you can't bleed all over the ballot. The only thing that keeps me ensured about the current system is that citizens don't precisely get the final vote, the state officials do.
1. Obama is trying to hide the fact that he was born in Kenya
2. Militia
3. you are being lied to about multiple governmental issues such as drones killing American citizens
and I would honestly like to know how old you are
add me or you will find a knife on your stomach when you wake up
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by Awesomeyour annoying some times fbg$

*you're, and thank you, annoying fool! ^_^

Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteFinally, a non-pointless forum.
I think that gun use should be limited to certain kinds of guns, and full background checks should remain in place. Making the 2nd Amendment more strict will not solve anything; it will just create a black market of weaponry, and criminals could still just grab a knife legally. The only weapons that should be sold to citizens are semi-automatic, small mag hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, and self-defense pistols.
if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama. limiting the types of guns we can carry and own will not help the matter it will only make it worse.

1. You conspirators really need to shut up. Do you really think someone can be a two term president and have many secrets about his past? Obama's earlier life is known, don't try to pretend it isn't.

2.So you're saying it would be good to allow fully-automatic assault rifles to the public? That is unnecessary for self defense, unless a gigantic mob of criminals is attacking you, which is highly unlikely, and for hunting purposes you can kill most animals with one shot, you don't need to empty a whole mag into them. Fully automatic assault rifles make massacres easy, and aren't needed for pure purposes.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about using guns to hunt. your point is invalid and pretty stupid and there are a lot of secrets that MSM doesn't tell you half the stuff about Obama that you need to know. and just a little heads up, Obama tried to get a bill passed to where he could get a third term

I was simply stating that the only pure uses of guns were hunting (or target shooting) and defense; I was not making a point about the Constitution. You are "invalid and pretty stupid" for believing otherwise.

Also, I don't really care if a few facts about the president's past aren't fully known by the public, as long as he runs the country well. There are agencies that can track down the entirety of information about a person given just a drop of blood, so I think the CIA is likely to know about the president's past, and if a large group of smart people allow him to hold his position, so should the general public.

As for the third term proposal, from what I heard it is being pushed by a Congressman, not Obama himself. It has also received support from many other people with government positions, and some past presidents. The three-term idea doesn't even seem that bad to me; if enough people vote for him in a third run, why not give him the third term?
Obama has his "minions" who work to keep his secrets protected from the public. and im sorry that you are being proved wrong (by a teenager btw) but no, hunting and defense are NOT the only pure uses of guns. and if you didn't watch the news on election night, you should know that Romney won the popular vote. the liberals cheated and only certain news channels show it. if you watch things like MSM, you wont get the entire truth. but I would like to know what news channel you follow

I don't watch the news, most channels have some form of bias. I use MULTIPLE internet sources, to get collective information. How about you just go complain to your braindead conspirator groups, because your arguments are just getting pathetic. I am not being proved wrong at all, (I'm a teenager too, by the way), I am just having random false pieces of information with no backup or proof thrown at me by someone who doesn't understand how the government works. How about you give me some REAL information, such as:
1. What Obama is 'hiding'
2. What other pure uses of guns there are
3. What I'm being 'lied to' about

You know how a lot of magazines gossip about celebrities, but it turns out to be false? You are basically believing the government equivalent of that. Honestly, I think America should revert back to the time when there were more requirements to vote, so people like you can't bleed all over the ballot. The only thing that keeps me ensured about the current system is that citizens don't precisely get the final vote, the state officials do.
1. Obama is trying to hide the fact that he was born in Kenya
2. Militia
3. you are being lied to about multiple governmental issues such as drones killing American citizens
and I would honestly like to know how old you are

1. Plenty of information has been released showing that he was born in Hawaii. Even if he does somehow turn out to be born in Kenya, that hasn't changed his ability to lead the country. A good leader doesn't become evil because he was born somewhere else.

2. Military aren't standard citizens, and standard citizens are whose rights are being protected by the Constitution. Many would even consider the military force 'defense', which I said was a reason for gun use. Of course the people fighting for our country are going to be armed with guns, what else will we give them, swords? There is a reason powerful rifles are considered military-grade, you know. Instead of arguing just to argue, try making a real point.

3. 14, and I haven't even heard of these drone strikes killing Americans, therefore I am not being 'lied to'.

On a side note, what is this MSM you have been talking about? I Googled it, and I doubt you mean Methylsulfonylmethane
I didn't say military, I said militia. he was born in Kenya otherwise he would have shown his birth certificate. and MSM stands for main stream media. and obviously im smarter than you because im only 13. and obviously the main stream media does lie because they don't tell you what is really going on
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Right from dictionary.com, very first definition:
Militia, n.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

He has shown his birth certificate, I have found two versions (a long and short version) on the internet through careful research, both of which state he was born in Oahu, Honolulu. Here is the version it appears he favors:

Lastly, knowing a random abbreviation and being approximately 1 year younger than me clearly doesn't make you smarter. The thing I find funny is that even though I tell you I didn't even know what MSM stood for and I say I don't watch standard media, you still claim I watch standard media. Maybe caps lock will help. I DON'T WATCH STANDARD MEDIA, WHICH YOU, AND PRETTY MUCH ONLY YOU, REFER TO AS MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Hopefully this time the repetition will finally sink in, and you will realize that:
1. Obama was born in Hawaii
2. I DON'T WATCH STANDARD MEDIA (Caps lock again, you don't seem to pay attention to lowercase)
Welp.
What has this discussion about gun laws turned into?
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
A combat against foolish conspiracy.
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteA combat against foolish conspiracy.
For one thing, the only one being foolish here is you. and another is that Obama's social security number that he put on his tax returns was from a man in the 1800's who was born in Connecticut. And I will admit that I was wrong on one part, the drone killings. they did kill an American citizen but not in America. And obamas real name (until he was adopted) was Barry Sotoro. I am not the only person who calls it main stream media. things like NBC the Today Show, ABC, CBS, CNN, and PBS are main stream media.Obama was not born in Hawaii, I looked it up and found that exact same picture, that certificate was forged. and a militia is a body of citizens (with no military training) who disagree with the military and are willing to fight against it.
im gonna ask this in a nice way no 1 cares
eRICE
eRICE
Level 12
23 Posts
Originally posted by mariofanim gonna ask this in a nice way no 1 cares
You're telling, not asking. Also, it's pretty obvious that people care. Why else would people be having an argument about it? Plus, you live in the U.S.. You should care too.
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteA combat against foolish conspiracy.
For one thing, the only one being foolish here is you. and another is that Obama's social security number that he put on his tax returns was from a man in the 1800's who was born in Connecticut. And I will admit that I was wrong on one part, the drone killings. they did kill an American citizen but not in America. And obamas real name (until he was adopted) was Barry Sotoro. I am not the only person who calls it main stream media. things like NBC the Today Show, ABC, CBS, CNN, and PBS are main stream media.Obama was not born in Hawaii, I looked it up and found that exact same picture, that certificate was forged. and a militia is a body of citizens (with no military training) who disagree with the military and are willing to fight against it.

I am being much, much less foolish than you. I don't feel like researching the Social Security or adoption thing right now, but I have seen reports from an Adobe-certified expert that fully explain how the documents were not forged. I have never heard anyone other than you use the term MSM, thus my lack of information about the term. Obama WAS born in Hawaii, so don't bother continuing to deny it. Militia in some instances means soldiers fighting against the federal government, but most definitions do not determine who they are fighting for, just that they are fighting.

I'm getting bored of arguing against your conspiracies, and Generic has a point. Let's switch back to the original topic.
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteA combat against foolish conspiracy.
For one thing, the only one being foolish here is you. and another is that Obama's social security number that he put on his tax returns was from a man in the 1800's who was born in Connecticut. And I will admit that I was wrong on one part, the drone killings. they did kill an American citizen but not in America. And obamas real name (until he was adopted) was Barry Sotoro. I am not the only person who calls it main stream media. things like NBC the Today Show, ABC, CBS, CNN, and PBS are main stream media.Obama was not born in Hawaii, I looked it up and found that exact same picture, that certificate was forged. and a militia is a body of citizens (with no military training) who disagree with the military and are willing to fight against it.

I am being much, much less foolish than you. I don't feel like researching the Social Security or adoption thing right now, but I have seen reports from an Adobe-certified expert that fully explain how the documents were not forged. I have never heard anyone other than you use the term MSM, thus my lack of information about the term. Obama WAS born in Hawaii, so don't bother continuing to deny it. Militia in some instances means soldiers fighting against the federal government, but most definitions do not determine who they are fighting for, just that they are fighting.

I'm getting bored of arguing against your conspiracies, and Generic has a point. Let's switch back to the original topic.
you are the one who changed the subject
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by |FBG$| RwhiteA combat against foolish conspiracy.
For one thing, the only one being foolish here is you. and another is that Obama's social security number that he put on his tax returns was from a man in the 1800's who was born in Connecticut. And I will admit that I was wrong on one part, the drone killings. they did kill an American citizen but not in America. And obamas real name (until he was adopted) was Barry Sotoro. I am not the only person who calls it main stream media. things like NBC the Today Show, ABC, CBS, CNN, and PBS are main stream media.Obama was not born in Hawaii, I looked it up and found that exact same picture, that certificate was forged. and a militia is a body of citizens (with no military training) who disagree with the military and are willing to fight against it.

I am being much, much less foolish than you. I don't feel like researching the Social Security or adoption thing right now, but I have seen reports from an Adobe-certified expert that fully explain how the documents were not forged. I have never heard anyone other than you use the term MSM, thus my lack of information about the term. Obama WAS born in Hawaii, so don't bother continuing to deny it. Militia in some instances means soldiers fighting against the federal government, but most definitions do not determine who they are fighting for, just that they are fighting.

I'm getting bored of arguing against your conspiracies, and Generic has a point. Let's switch back to the original topic.
you are the one who changed the subject


Not bad
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
You were technically the one who started it when you said
Originally posted by maggie_horan82if we are going to do back ground checks, we need to start with Obama.
because he is the one responsible for most of the crap we are in

|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Oh, yes. The government hasn't magically turned itself around in less than a decade, so it must be the President's fault, because he definitely has total control over the entire government and economy!
*Chilling in Australia*
---
---
ModLevel 34
6,708 Posts
Originally posted by maggie_horan82because he is the one responsible for most of the crap we are in

Think you've been watching too much Reality Check.
Just like my dad, you're dead set that the government is conspiring to take away ALL our rights JUST because ONE man told you so. Listen, Reality Check has some good points, but it's not to be taken so close to heart. So, drop the stupid conspiracy theories and get back on topic.
Originally posted by CharlesFoxKays
Originally posted by maggie_horan82because he is the one responsible for most of the crap we are in

Think you've been watching too much Reality Check.
Just like my dad, you're dead set that the government is conspiring to take away ALL our rights JUST because ONE man told you so. Listen, Reality Check has some good points, but it's not to be taken so close to heart. So, drop the stupid conspiracy theories and get back on topic.
WTF is "Reality Check"? I watch the O'Reily Factor and Sean Hannity mostly . I am on topic. the other guy is the one who changed it
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by CharlesFoxKays
Originally posted by maggie_horan82because he is the one responsible for most of the crap we are in

Think you've been watching too much Reality Check.
Just like my dad, you're dead set that the government is conspiring to take away ALL our rights JUST because ONE man told you so. Listen, Reality Check has some good points, but it's not to be taken so close to heart. So, drop the stupid conspiracy theories and get back on topic.
WTF is "Reality Check"? I watch the O'Reily Factor and Sean Hannity mostly . I am on topic. the other guy is the one who changed it

Again, you can't just say we need to get a background check for the president, then claim I changed the subject. YOU changed it. Now please, change it back.
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by maggie_horan82
Originally posted by CharlesFoxKays
Originally posted by maggie_horan82because he is the one responsible for most of the crap we are in

Think you've been watching too much Reality Check.
Just like my dad, you're dead set that the government is conspiring to take away ALL our rights JUST because ONE man told you so. Listen, Reality Check has some good points, but it's not to be taken so close to heart. So, drop the stupid conspiracy theories and get back on topic.
WTF is "Reality Check"? I watch the O'Reily Factor and Sean Hannity mostly . I am on topic. the other guy is the one who changed it

Again, you can't just say we need to get a background check for the president, then claim I changed the subject. YOU changed it. Now please, change it back.
i tried, YOU wouldn't let me
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
You are SO right. When you started trying to type an on-topic post, I broke into your house and smashed your keyboard, thus preventing you from posting on topic. It's definitely my fault.
fbg$=female
|FBG$| VeKo
|FBG$| VeKo
ModLevel 33
2,229 Posts
Originally posted by rated awesome fbg$=female

Your parents must be very proud. It must have been difficult to fit so much stupid into such a small space.
Originally posted by |FBG$| Rwhite
Originally posted by rated awesome fbg$=female

Your parents must be very proud. It must have been difficult to fit so much stupid into such a small space.
HAHA that's funny
Lost
Lost
Level 28
3,052 Posts
Originally posted by rated awesome fbg$=female

It's trying to communicate, what should we do?
1 2 next