• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Second Amendment must go

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Screen-Shot-2014-06-27-at-Friday-June-27-11.56-PM.png


Source
And?
 
I see gang shootings.

What so you see?

I see a country with 15x the firearms ownership of south american countries, yet having 1/5th to 1/25th the number of firearms deaths as those same south american countries despite the higher ownership rates.

I see a slight negative effect of allowing unfettered and unregulated immigration from those same countries into the US.

I see no correlation between firearm ownership rates and firearm deaths.
 
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every mass killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24VA0tTTsvM

No one needs to own a firearm whose only design is to kill people.


Before anyone else wastes time replying to this buffoon:

The content of his post is plagiarized from this New York Times article. Maybe he's a dishonest content thief, or maybe he's just too stupid to know that quoting other people requires attribution, but either way he's clearly not interested in or capable of an honest discussion.
 
Before anyone else wastes time replying to this buffoon:

The content of his post is plagiarized from this New York Times article. Maybe he's a dishonest content thief, or maybe he's just too stupid to know that quoting other people requires attribution, but either way he's clearly not interested in or capable of an honest discussion.

brilliant.

i bet his lefty buddies have no problem with it
 
I'm just waiting for the next mass shooting.
Give it a couple days.



Front page editorial on New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/u...editorial.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1

“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment,”

There's nothing peculiar about it and the rampant confusion about it's meaning is a 20th century phenomena that seems to correlate strongly with the will for more gun legislation.

Didn't read past that point because if this is their lead I can't be sure that there's any content of value.
 
If you are going to be shot or killed by American guns what would be the point?

Oh you were saying to go to Mexico because they have a better health care system to cover those injuries.

So are you supporting the OP and shredding the constitution or not?
 
LOL not going to happen.not yet anyway and not in 50 years i would guess.

you are tired of bloodshed? you haven't seen nothing if you ban guns.


also once the 2nd goes a lot of other rights will too.


anyway if you know any history you know how well trying to take away things away has worked LOL
This, exactly. Overturn the Second Amendment - the one that protects all the others - and you WILL have civil war.
 
So which Americans will you be killing?

Those that try to take your guns or those that simply disagree with you?

Will I be killing? Hopefully none. But if it comes to it, the former. I know, you're disappointed, you get a raging hardon every time you hear that someone was killed in a shooting, likely it makes you happy for hours.
 
I'm Canadian and I gotta laugh at Americans that come up here loaded for bear with belts of ammo and shoot up the forest hitting nothing.

We say keep them drunk and amused then their harmless. Meanwhile we will take out the game with one shot from a 30-30, SKS or 303.

One thing I do believe in is that Canadians should be allowed to carry a descent Pistol in the Bush.
 
Last edited:
Let's shred the constitution because a large number of gang bangers in Milwaukee are shooting each other..

http://data.jsonline.com/News/HomicideTracker/

Are guns really the problem? If by some miracle all the guns in Milwaukee were removed would there be peace and happiness in the streets or would gangs and drug dealers find another way to kill each other?

How many of those homicides were with legally purchased and owned firearms?

Shred the constitution? Do you not know how things work? He wants to legally amend the constitution, which is the only way you can change it.
 
Will I be killing? Hopefully none. But if it comes to it, the former. I know, you're disappointed, you get a raging hardon every time you hear that someone was killed in a shooting, likely it makes you happy for hours.

Says the guy that's ready and willing to kill Americans over a gun. You are a clueless dumbass psycho. Go clean a loaded gun😉
 
Back
Top