subtleknifewield wrote:So which Chinese customs would YOU discard?
subtleknifewield wrote:So which Chinese customs would YOU discard?
subtleknifewield wrote:subtleknifewield wrote:So which Chinese customs would YOU discard?
subtleknifewield wrote:restrict it to those who are most likely to responsibly use them--a system which as I recall is already being used in other first-world nations.
khazalid wrote:
the school may have had a no gun policy, but i'm willing to bet the local wal-mart sure as f*ck didn't. lrn2read dy
mrswdk wrote:subtleknifewield wrote:restrict it to those who are most likely to responsibly use them--a system which as I recall is already being used in other first-world nations.
Other than Switzerland, almost no one in any other developed nation is capable of legally owning a gun. In the UK, for example, they can only be owned by farmers (for reasons such as pest control) or for sport. I believe it's the same pretty much everywhere.
I mean, what other 'responsible uses' for guns can you think of?
Phatscotty wrote:khazalid wrote:
the school may have had a no gun policy, but i'm willing to bet the local wal-mart sure as f*ck didn't. lrn2read dy
subtleknifewield wrote:Lol Scotty XDmrswdk wrote:subtleknifewield wrote:restrict it to those who are most likely to responsibly use them--a system which as I recall is already being used in other first-world nations.
Other than Switzerland, almost no one in any other developed nation is capable of legally owning a gun. In the UK, for example, they can only be owned by farmers (for reasons such as pest control) or for sport. I believe it's the same pretty much everywhere.
I mean, what other 'responsible uses' for guns can you think of?
I point to Germany, actually, for this. https://books.google.com/books?id=oD46J ... &q&f=false If you want to read the background, read from there (page 314), or if you want to skip to the current law, scroll down to nearly the bottom of page 315. This is essentially the sort of restriction I am suggesting.
As for responsible use, guns can still be used for self-defense.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
KoolBak wrote:Our worst mass murder was caused with fucking airplanes...didnt hear you whining nonamerican bastards bitching about airtravel.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Phatscotty wrote:khazalid wrote:
the school may have had a no gun policy, but i'm willing to bet the local wal-mart sure as f*ck didn't. lrn2read dy
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
subtleknifewield wrote:Lol Scotty XD
As for responsible use, guns can still be used for self-defense. Just because it isn't a lawless wild west
ConfederateSS wrote:subtleknifewield wrote:Lol Scotty XD
As for responsible use, guns can still be used for self-defense. Just because it isn't a lawless wild west
-------YOU'RE RIGHT ,THIS ISN'T THE OLD WEST...THERE WAS A CODE OF HONOR BACK THEN. EVEN AMONG THIEVES...BACK THEN, IT WAS ONE ON ONE IN THE STREET...EACH WITH A GUN. NOT WALKING INTO PLACES,WITH THE OBJECT TO KILL,KILL,KILL TO GET YOUR NAME MENTIONED WORLDWIDE. AGAINST THOSE THAT CAN'T FIGHT BACK...I KNOW BLAME FLAGS,GUNS,ETC...NOT THE ONES SEEKING FAME...IN AN UNDIGNIFIED ACT......ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
ConfederateSS wrote:subtleknifewield wrote:Lol Scotty XD
As for responsible use, guns can still be used for self-defense. Just because it isn't a lawless wild west
-------YOU'RE RIGHT ,THIS ISN'T THE OLD WEST...THERE WAS A CODE OF HONOR BACK THEN. EVEN AMONG THIEVES...BACK THEN, IT WAS ONE ON ONE IN THE STREET...EACH WITH A GUN. NOT WALKING INTO PLACES,WITH THE OBJECT TO KILL,KILL,KILL TO GET YOUR NAME MENTIONED WORLDWIDE. AGAINST THOSE THAT CAN'T FIGHT BACK...I KNOW BLAME FLAGS,GUNS,ETC...NOT THE ONES SEEKING FAME...IN AN UNDIGNIFIED ACT......ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
khazalid wrote:Phatscotty wrote:khazalid wrote:
the school may have had a no gun policy, but i'm willing to bet the local wal-mart sure as f*ck didn't. lrn2read dy
read the OP again.
you're right btw. meth is simple enough to make with the right ingredients. might as well start selling it in wal-mart because logic.
bravo.
subtleknifewield wrote:ConfederateSS wrote:subtleknifewield wrote:Lol Scotty XD
As for responsible use, guns can still be used for self-defense. Just because it isn't a lawless wild west
-------YOU'RE RIGHT ,THIS ISN'T THE OLD WEST...THERE WAS A CODE OF HONOR BACK THEN. EVEN AMONG THIEVES...BACK THEN, IT WAS ONE ON ONE IN THE STREET...EACH WITH A GUN. NOT WALKING INTO PLACES,WITH THE OBJECT TO KILL,KILL,KILL TO GET YOUR NAME MENTIONED WORLDWIDE. AGAINST THOSE THAT CAN'T FIGHT BACK...I KNOW BLAME FLAGS,GUNS,ETC...NOT THE ONES SEEKING FAME...IN AN UNDIGNIFIED ACT......ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
OK, I can't even make sense of half of what you're saying here :V
Now see, this i an example of someone doing something constructive about it...
https://www.change.org/p/congress-impro ... QUBPLRY%3D
Phatscotty wrote:khazalid wrote:Phatscotty wrote:khazalid wrote:
the school may have had a no gun policy, but i'm willing to bet the local wal-mart sure as f*ck didn't. lrn2read dy
read the OP again.
you're right btw. meth is simple enough to make with the right ingredients. might as well start selling it in wal-mart because logic.
bravo.
the logic, or lack of logic here, isn't about the ingredients of meth. It's about the farce implicating the access of guns in stores, specifically wal-mart and how their policy 'sure the f#%k didn't'. Trying to backpedal to an absolutely sarcastic OP written by someone else isn't going to help you deal with what was written by you
Users browsing this forum: No registered users