Leaderboard

The ONLY limit on the 2nd Amendment is that you should have to have sufficient room to use whatever weapons you possess without bothering others. Want a nuke? Better move to central Nevada. Any "line" regarding weapons ownership will be arbitrary and based on someone's opinion on what they think is good for you. People (read: idiots) tend to associate violent acts with the instruments used. Do we credit the scalpel for a successful surgery? Do we credit the hammer for a house? Do we credit paintbrush for the mona lisa? Yes the tools make the work possible, but without the operator, those tools are just inanimate objects sitting on the table. Objects do not possess motivations, or the means to operate themselves. Just like we fault the builder when a house is built all fuckered up, we need to properly place fault for violent crimes. The shooter is 100% responsible for this, and should be treated accordingly.

Those that have a personal connection to the event or victims will have a very different view on the incident than I will. Acknowledging a bad situation, but not pouring out essentially feigned grief (I don't know any of the victims personally) is not good enough for you? Wondering how the over-reaction to the event is going to affect me and my ability to protect my family is embarrassing? I shall try to live with the approbation. It will be difficult, but I'll try. God bless you for your universal view. Who are you to decide if "all that is necessary?" How about if I just want it? (*cue what about RPGs or tactical nuke arguments...) The illegal act of this headcase is the issue, not those who exercise their freedoms responsibly. Hint: it's illegal to murder someone. That didn't stop this idiot. Restricting even more those of us who decide what we want to have is not going to undo this tragedy or stop future ones. Ever b1tch about Big Blue's penchant for making everyone wear diapers for the stupidity of one?

SNAP, you don't know me very well... And where in the hell in the Second Amendment does it state "firearm ownership lines have to drawn somewhere?!?" I am exercising the right I defended for almost 25 years. If you have any problems with that, then

Dudes, First off, this is unfathomable. 2d off - I'm already disgusted (not by this forum), in fact I'd say the conduct on this forum is respectable and thoughtful, not like the shit going around on facebook. I own firearms and will continue too, I have the right. I also have the responsibility to treat the weapons with respect, and not view them as a means to resolve personal vendettas. Further, as a responsible weapons owner I refuse threaten/instigate my political/conversational opponents through firearms, in any way, symbolic or not. This ###### can kiss my ass, if anyone steps ups and screams we need to get rid of guns, or that this proves we needs guns, they can kiss my ass too. I don't want to hearing anything like "you can take my guns, bullets first". What we need is intelligent conversation and not open rebellion against our political system. This guy was subliminally endorsed. The next time Sarah Palin says "she has her sights" on someone please going me in telling her to go ###### herself - and that only a dumb ###### would have a map targeting individuals like their Osama Bin Laden. The thing that makes America great is the peaceful, democratic transition of power. Let's not let ######s like this and his instigators throw that away.

Dude, you're a huge tool.

If I'm wrong, please explain the merits of unlimited gun rights. And don't use the "criminals will win" argument. A .45 bullet will drop a bad guy just as quickly as a 30mm HEI round, if the user is proficient, of course. Spoken like the true intellectual you are! I'm also very intimidated by your "capturing" skills. I've voiced my opinion. You've made it clear that any real discussion about this topic is impossible, so why should we waste time exercising your vast vocabulary of four-letter words in a series of pointless back-and-forths? The First Amendment has limits. Inciting mayhem, for instance. One more thing... It's seemingly always the guys who have never actually done "something," whether that "something" be getting laid, flying airplanes, or being violent (killin' squirrels don't count), that talk the most/act the biggest about it. Just something I've noticed...

Really?! Joking, right?! I am all about the second amendment, but is all of that necessary? I'm curious of the purpose of such extensive firepower. Obviously, firearm ownership lines have to be drawn somewhere. Whether it's semi-automatic handguns, fully-automatic rifles, or personally owned A-10s, there comes a point where the right to bear arms ends. Just like well-intentioned evangelicals, over-the-top radio talk show hosts, or radical political activists put-off the general public with their voices, responsible gun owners can be a lot more successful advocating the Second Amendment by quietly promoting safe and responsible gun usage than by owning, bragging about, or encouraging stockpiling of military standard weapons. No private citizen is going to fend off any tyrannical government with any amount of firepower, and for the safety of my family, I prefer just enough firepower to get lodged in an intruder, but not go through my baby's bedroom wall. I am a Constitutionally-minded conservative, but bragging about the size of your "gun" in the aftermath of events like yesterday's shootings does more to hurt Second Amendment rights than help. I'm not sayin', but... I'm just sayin'.

And I'm exercising my right to the First Amendment which I have defended (and continue to) for the last 17 years. I disagree with your view of the Second Amendment.