Message from @Mana
Discord ID: 513806111367757834
you say low end, but in the ends guns are simply tools.
A low end hammer hammers nails than that's all it needs to do.
Doesn't need to be gold plated.
Yep. You don't need a Ginsu knife to shank a bitch.
Or a high powered scope to hit a good shot
Or high caliber bullet to kill something
my point in referencing low-end handguns was to say that the weapons most demonized as being 'weapons of war' or 'killing machines' or whatever are rarely used in violent crime. they just receive more attention.
if leftists really cared about preventing violent crime they'd try to tackle the honor culture among inner city young males. but in order to do so they would have to admit that the social policies they've enacted in the past helped create the problem.
ah. Yes. The handgun is the most common weapon used in crime *AND* in mass shootings
mass shootings are a tiny fraction of gun murders though.
the overwhelming majority of gun murders are young inner city males shooting other other young inner city males over stupid honor conflicts.
'Inner city'.
if you're trying to imply that i'm using a euphemism for black, you are incorrect. other ethnicities experience the same phenomenon.
population density appears to be a factor.,
Full AUto Handguns are kinda funny, though only a couple exist.
like the M712 Schnellfeuer or some Italian thing that brought Gun-Jesus to an evil giggl
@J Edgar no 😛
Tucker Carlson is a Liar and We Should Not Feel Sorry for Him https://youtu.be/zDXutnODu_8
why'd you link that shit??
and why is he a liar?
This bitch is crazy.
until level 10, plscomment your Links....
@Mana posted a Link to the Shapiro Sunday Special with the last good President that Canada had.
Before the Hair and Sock Model...
Tim, there can be no gun control debate because there is no debate.
Just like there is no free speech debate. You either recognize that they are rights embedded explicitly into the Constitution, or you are wrong.
And if you look at Europe, you know why you want to have guns.
It's like having a slavery debate.
Just look at Rotherham. Would such a situation be possible if the Population would have been armed?
i'd go further and say that the rights exist whether or not the constitution exists.
A right for humans to arm themselves? Eeehh.
if the radical left seized power and burned the constitution tomorrow, i'd still have my rights.
I wouldn't go that far.
I would. At least for the native population.
i'd have a tyrannical government to fight, but they can't take my rights away. they are inalienable.
Sadly we don't have too many guns in public.
It depends if you're talking about law or philosophy.
There are things that are considered human rights, but that doesn't mean every human on earth has them.
And I wouldn't say that every human has an intrinsic right to bear arms.
They certainly have an intrinsic right to self defense
Yes, I would agree with that.
But what does it really say if someone can deny you from exercising a right through action?
Take an example in Thailand
We aren't allowed to have guns
Then there was a woman stubbing 4 students to death