1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. latecomer91364

    latecomer91364 Easily Distracte

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    51,926
    You know, I wasn't even going to bother responding to your juvenile drivel, but... eh... what the hell

    You consistently attack and have nothing but empty insults. Do I scare you that much? I must, apparently.

    Don't worry, little boy, some other, more 'grown up' Libtard (I know - it's a contradiction in terms) will hold your small, trembling hand

    It must be sad to be as empty and pathetic as you are, following me around like a lovesick puppy dog.
    And you make such cogent arguments!
    (Gotta add an LOL here, lest someone think I'm serious - you Lefty Fucks are so bad at seeing sarcasm as anything but 'fact')

    And no... I would never fuck you...
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    #81
  2. Barry D

    Barry D Over-Watch Commander

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2019
    Messages:
    3,297
    I was going to lay out a nice long statement about this and that regarding firearm Pros and Cons
     
    1. Barry D
      Disregard....
       
      Barry D, May 6, 2020
    #82
  3. CS natureboy

    CS natureboy Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    27,174
    They banned a coffee company????:wacky:

    How Dumb? Canada Bans Black Rifle Coffee Company in Gun Ban

    May 8, 2020
    By

    Richard Moorhead
    [​IMG]

    The Canadian government appears to have banned a coffee company in the nation’s wide-reaching new ban on various forms of firearms deemed by its government to be “assault weapons.”

    A listing for the company is found in the country’s law, which singles out thousands of firearm models by name. Somewhere along the line, Black Rifle Coffee Company was identified as a gun manufacturer, even though the company has nothing to do with actually making guns.

    [​IMG]
    Black Rifle Coffee

    @blckriflecoffee


    Say it ain't so @JustinTrudeau did you really ban our Fresh Roasted Freedom in Canada eh? [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG] #brcc #americascoffee #eh

    [​IMG]

    8,553

    8:35 PM - May 6, 2020
    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    4,430 people are talking about this



    Google search records for “Black Rifle Company BRC15B” result in listings for Black Rifle Coffee company, not any firearm. Black Rifle Coffee is a veteran-owned coffee company that describes its mission as “serving coffee and culture to people who love America.”

    It’s unclear how the Canadian ban on a coffee company is going to be enforced. It’s probably going to be simply ignored, as the Canadian parliament seems to have merely researched registered corporations that sound like gun manufacturers and slapped them on the ban list without much consideration as to their real business.


    The ban was rammed into place in the wake of mass shooting in the nation’s Nova Scotia province, and more than 1,500 models of firearms are included in the ban. In their cavalier rush to ban the guns as soon as possible, the Canadian government appears to have missed several forms of semiautomatic rifle that are common alternatives to the AR-15.
     
    #83
  4. BigSuzyB

    BigSuzyB Porn Star

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2015
    Messages:
    10,249
    Big League Politics again proves they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    #84
  5. CS natureboy

    CS natureboy Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    27,174
    Banning Guns Will Increase Crime | Harvard Study Overview



    Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
    It’s a complex question, of course, with many factors at play. It’s also one that sends folks from all manner of political backgrounds into a tizzy, left and right. Let’s refrain from getting political and look at the facts. We’re going to take you through an exhaustive report by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and reveal some hard facts about what gun ownership does and does NOT do here in the United States. The end result of this study, we believe, that anti-gun legislation will continue to have the opposite effect that its proponents claim. In other words, banning guns will increase crime, not reduce it.

    FROM: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?”
    by American criminologist Don B. Kates and Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser.
    International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.
    Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them. Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States.
    Between 1998‐2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R. Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

    *not_secure_link*agadeveloper.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Banning-Guns-Will-Increase-Crime-Harvard-Study-Overview1.jpg
    Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates (rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)


    The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.” Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text: [T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across time within the United States, U.S. cities, counties within Illinois, country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, regions of the United States, nations, or population subgroups.
    A second misconception about the relationship between firearms and violence attributes Europe’s generally low homicide rates to stringent gun control. That attribution cannot be accurate since murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the gun controls were introduced. For instance, virtually the only English gun control during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the practice that police patrolled without guns. During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are comparatively very high. In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐extant studies.


    I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
    One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.” So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use.
    Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. Consider, for example, the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates. The non‐correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of “homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty‐six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990–1995” to gun ownership levels showed “no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate.” Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which “no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.”

    *not_secure_link*agadeveloper.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Handgun-Review-The-Taurus-Curve-Review10.jpg
    It is a common image, but it is not an accurate one.




    II. ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION
    However unintentionally, the irrelevance of focusing on weaponry is highlighted by the most common theme in the more guns equal more death argument. Epitomizing this theme is a World Health Organization (WHO) report asserting, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.” The authors, in noting that the presence of a gun in a home corresponds to a higher risk of suicide, apparently assume that if denied firearms, potential suicides will decide to live rather than turning to the numerous alternative suicide mechanisms. The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means. Thus, it is not just the murder rate in gun‐less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American rate.
    There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it. One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.

    *not_secure_link*agadeveloper.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Banning-Guns-Will-Increase-Crime-Harvard-Study-Overview2.jpg

    III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?
    The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly involve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita. Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;” that banning handgun possession only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citizens;” that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;” that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;” that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.” These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually contradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “criminological axioms.” Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.” Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”
    “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”

    [​IMG]
    IV. MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?
    Anti‐gun activists are not alone in their belief that widespread firearm ownership substantially affects violent crime rates. The same understanding also characterizes many pro‐gun activists. Of course, pro‐gun activists’ belief leads them to the opposite conclusion: that widespread firearm ownership reduces violence by deterring criminals from confrontation crimes and making more attractive such nonconfrontation crimes as theft from unoccupied commercial or residential premises. Superficially, the evidence for this belief seems persuasive. Table 1, for instance, shows that Denmark has roughly half the gun ownership rate of Norway, but a 50% higher murder rate, while Russia has only one‐ninth Norway’s gun ownership rate but a murder rate 2500% higher.
    More than 100 million handguns are owned in the United States primarily for self‐defense, and 3.5 million people have permits to carry concealed handguns for protection. Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self‐defensive use of firearms” in the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed with firearms.” It is little wonder that the National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. “[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.

    V. GEOGRAPHIC, HISTORICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS
    If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, it should follow, all things being equal, that geographic areas with higher gun ownership should have more murder than those with less gun ownership; that demographic groups with higher gun ownership should be more prone to murder than those with less ownership; and that historical eras in which gun ownership is widespread should have more murder than those in which guns were fewer or less widespread. As discussed earlier, these effects are not present. Historical eras, demographic groups, and geographic areas with more guns do not have more murders than those with fewer guns. Indeed, those with more guns often, or even generally, have fewer murders. Of course, all other things may not be equal. Obviously, many factors other than guns may promote or reduce the number of murders in any given place or time or among particular groups.
    Acknowledging this does not, however, blunt the force of two crucial points. The first regards the burden of proof. Those who assert the mantra, and urge that public policy be based on it, bear the burden of proving that more guns do equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. But they cannot bear that burden because there simply is no large number of cases in which the widespread prevalence of guns among the general population has led to more murder. By the same token, but even more importantly, it cannot be shown consistently that a reduction in the number of guns available to the general population has led to fewer deaths. Nor is the burden borne by speculating that the reason such cases do not appear is that other factors always intervene.
    The second issue, allied to the burden of proof, regards plausibility. France and neighboring Germany have exactly the same, comparatively high rate of gun ownership, yet the French murder rate is nearly twice the German; France has infinitely more gun ownership than Luxembourg, which nevertheless has a murder rate five times greater, though handguns are illegal and other types of guns sparse; Germany has almost double the gun owner‐ ship rate of neighboring Austria yet a similarly very low murder rate; the Norwegian gun ownership rate is over twice the Austrian rate, yet the murder rates are almost identical. And then there is Slovenia, with 66% more gun ownership than Slovakia, nevertheless has roughly one‐third less murder per capita; Hungary has more than 6 times the gun ownership rate of neighboring Romania but a lower murder rate; the Czech Republic’s gun ownership rate is more than 3 times that of neighboring Poland, but its murder rate is lower; Poland and neighboring Slovenia have exactly the same murder rate, though Slovenia has over triple the gun ownership per capita.

    *not_secure_link*agadeveloper.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Banning-Guns-Will-Increase-Crime-Harvard-Study-Overview3.jpg
    This table covers all the Eastern European nations for which we have data regarding both gun ownership and murder rates.




    Conclusion
    This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavilat the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
    Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
     
    1. BigSuzyB
      Now we have some University study from Gun Fetish Monthly.
      Canadians will always have guns to do with them,what most Canadians wish to do with guns.
       
      BigSuzyB, May 8, 2020
    2. CS natureboy
      Yeah, one of them is a Canadian, we both know how unreliable they are, huh???:rolleyes:

      by American criminologist Don B. Kates and Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser.
       
      CS natureboy, May 8, 2020
    3. BigSuzyB
      Did the study say that Canada should or should not enforce the letter and spirit of the law already in place?
      It's been too long a wait for the powers that be to make this call. Hunter version vs assault version Ar-15 as an example.
      So now the list is there for all to see just where the line in fact is. There are gun fetish folk up here too.
      I'm no one too shame but they are just going to have to find a way to live their kinky lives without these extra offensive weapons.
       
      BigSuzyB, May 8, 2020
    4. CS natureboy
      The article does not single out Canada. But do tell me, what percent do you think Canada's crime rate will drop as a result of these new gun laws?
       
      CS natureboy, May 8, 2020
    5. BigSuzyB
      Not at all. Like I said , not really a new law, just defining a standing law
      Each new weapon will be measured by how these where defined.
       
      BigSuzyB, May 8, 2020
    #85
  6. clive pickering

    clive pickering Porn Star

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,321
    Oh, for fuck's sake natureboy, we get it.
    You conflate the right to bear arms with freedom.
    It's your right in at least two senses of the word.
    Spoiler alert - "No taxation without representation" Totally agree - as did many in the UK. Makes for interesting, if overlooked, reading.
    Crack on - poor choice of phrase maybe.

    We all know that it was an armed, agitated, angry for freedom, populace that has kept the wolf of tyranny from your doors.
    Shit wait: mostly it was greed, proven venality (by an investigative press), hubris and due process that's brought the lying, hypocritical,
    greedy, manipulative bastards we ALL seem to be "blessed" with to their eventual ends - @ least in my lifetime, barring assassination,
    which is hardly the best argument for "let's give everybody a gun" known to man.

    Seriously for a minute, and if I've misunderstood the nature of the constitution - tell me, fair enough.
    You must have extended your concept(s) of suffrage, 1918/19 when women got the vote (?) so your founding principles are malleable.
    There is a concept in Islam & Judaism for instance, that issues should be duly considered, eg: should a "true believer" drink coffee; should folk eat pork ?
    Law, tradition and precedent are studied. A decision is made - invariably by men of a certain age and attitude - and that's it.
    Done, decided. Nothing to see here.
    Take the coffee decision - neither you nor I would accept being told that some fool hundreds of years ago dictates what we can drink.

    The right to bear arms encapsulates a principle, not altogether opposed to it as it happens, but times have changed, weaponry has certainly changed !
    The principle the 2A enshrines is open to interpretation ... I for one, am quite fond of the idea of some bearded wonder
    appearing on the mountain and giving some jaw-dropped fool tablets of stone - it's a lovely fable ...
    I don't like the idea of a principle or right being God given as it were.
    I don't live in Medieval Scotland, the Maxwell's don't get to kidnap and impregnate little girls, thus founding a dynasty, anymore.
    We evolve. Ideas, concepts, principles, laws, social norms ... evolve.
    You are absolutely entitled to your worldview as I am mine.
    We're not gods and the constitution, the 2A, is not God-given.
    It is the work of men, and of it's time and to question it is not heresy.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    #86
  7. submissively speaking

    submissively speaking Sassochist

    Joined:
    May 26, 2018
    Messages:
    34,198
    I get a real kick out of American gun fetishists trying to make a Canadian decision about their second amendment interests.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    1. Ed Itor
      Hey Yankees can carry guns under their constitution as long as they realise that their constitutional rights end at their borders and do not follow them out into the rest of the world.
      In Canada your merranda rights does not exist, you can ask for a lawyer (which you pay for) but that doesn't mean that the police will stop asking you questions.
       
      Ed Itor, May 12, 2020
    #87
  8. CS natureboy

    CS natureboy Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    27,174
    No, it's the right of choice to bare arms that I support. It's the freedom to make an individual choice that I support.
    And only for law abiding people.

    That would exclude this person in the latest shooting in Canada.

    Instead of making new laws, the current laws should start being enforced.

    Oh and also clive, according to current crime rate statistics, the US has a lower crime rate than Sweden and about the same as the UK....


    https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/crime-rate-by-country/
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    1. BigSuzyB
      Wait a minute. Canadians love us some crime too.
      This is not a new law. It is a broad ruling on weapons that the public wanted rulings on.
      Can I have an AR-15 or not?
       
      BigSuzyB, May 8, 2020
    2. Ed Itor
      No.
       
      Ed Itor, May 12, 2020
    #88
  9. CS natureboy

    CS natureboy Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    27,174
    So who is trying to "make a Canadian decision about their second amendment interests"???

    You have no problem voicing your opinion about US politics. Are you trying to make a "decision" about US policy and interests when you do that?
     
    1. submissively speaking
      Perhaps you might take your second amendment sideshow to the Gun Rights thread. That seems more your speed.
       
    2. CS natureboy
      Well sweetheart, perhaps you are the one who should take it to the Gun Rights thread, because you are the only one here bringing up the 2nd amendment.

      Last time I checked, Canada didn't have a second amendment....;)
       
      CS natureboy, May 8, 2020
    3. Ed Itor
      As our Constitution has amendments we must have a 2nd as does every country with a constitution that has more than one amendment.
       
      Ed Itor, May 12, 2020
      clive pickering likes this.
    #89
  10. clive pickering

    clive pickering Porn Star

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,321
    Fatalaties per capita (say by per 100,00) due to guns are noticeably high(er) in the US than in nearly all, I think, comparable "1st world" countries.

    I don't expect you to have an epiphany and I'm not "shouting" and nor are you which makes a change for a conversation between you and I o_O !
    I'm questioning what we think of as inalienable, absolutely permanent - set in stone etc.
    Ultimately - guns aren't the be all and end all of my argument, nervous as they make me and over easy tools that they are.
    I'm questioning mindset and how we see our futures, not just our history.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    #90
  11. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    61,653
    In the civilized world even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

    Once I saw the answer on a sweatshirt. It read, "Take my gun, take my manhood."
     
    1. shootersa
      Well it would take a snowflake liberal to equate a firearm with manhood.

      People who own guns generally do so for one or more reasons;
      As a tool, you know, to hunt with. Kinda like a snowflake going to the supermarket except not so easy.
      Self protection; cause they believe they should defend their homes and families and a gun is how best to do that
      Cause they like guns. Like to collect them, and display them, and trade them and whatnot.

      Shooter has never known a gun owner who acted like their manhood was enhanced by gun ownership.
       
      shootersa, May 9, 2020
    #91
  12. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    61,653
    In the civilized world even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

    Once I saw the answer on a sweatshirt. It read, "Take my gun, take my manhood."
     
    #92
  13. BigSuzyB

    BigSuzyB Porn Star

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2015
    Messages:
    10,249
    I'm all good with the 2nd amendment. We can't all do it the same way. It's a great social experiment. Time will tell.
    In fact I think it would have been a good thing to also interpret the general welfare clause as broadly as the 2nd amendment is interpreted.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    #93
  14. CS natureboy

    CS natureboy Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    27,174
    Hunting

    Self defense

    Competition shooting

    Sport shooting like trap and skeet

    Long range target shooting

    Plinking
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    #94
  15. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    61,653
    This is a very clever retort. :laugh::laugh:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    #95
  16. latecomer91364

    latecomer91364 Easily Distracte

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    51,926
    Hee hee - slobbering dog boy is easily impressed. Yup that kind of erudite analysis ranks right up there with Churchill's best comebacks.
    Jeez - how desperate is barfeater for a little social acceptance? "Hey everybody! Look at me! I'm part of the club, right? Look at me! Lookie... lookie..."

    Who cares - the Libfucks love you because, albeit stupid, they're smarter than you.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • wtf wtf x 1
    #96
  17. abej

    abej Pearl of the Pacific

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2019
    Messages:
    5,742
    Lets be honest here? If your not a citizen of
    Canada, your opinion means squat! Any more
    than theirs in the US...

    Don't know what's good for Canada? Actually
    don't care! This is just another meaningless
    post, that makes 4,875....:p
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    #97
  18. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    61,653
    I am too genteel for you. Resident of Maryland treats you with the contempt you deserve. His comment was so crude, so lacking in any effort at erudition, that it was appropriate for you. :p
     
    #98
  19. Deleted User kekw

    Deleted User kekw Porn Star Banned!

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    8,657
    Someone is upset. Whine more.

    Would you like to tell me about how you're not upset? I'm sure it'll be convincing.

    You don't even have the courage to quote anyone. That is clearly hoping for an overlook, and it's pathetic. Stand behind your words or don't say them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    #99
  20. Deleted User kekw

    Deleted User kekw Porn Star Banned!

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    8,657
    You give yourself too much credit. I don't care about you. I have this thing; maybe you have heard of it. It's called a life. I don't care about you and your sophomoric, sardonic attitude.

    Let me be abundantly clear with you: you are nobody to me. I don't care about you or your responses. You can think you win on this little forum however and whenever you want. I don't care. your entire profile is pathetic and indicative of someone with low self esteem. Give up and go to a therapist or a psychiatrist.
     
    • Like Like x 1