Typical Kike on Gun Control
On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
gun violence low.
That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?
BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.
What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.
The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.
**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??
Don
|