The 2nd Amendment

Good Meme!

[image deleted]

Upvote!

<<< Duck-foot Flintlock

I have not seen anything like the ones in your picture. I knew about the duckfoot flintlock from an old book we have that said ship captains used them in case of a mutiny.
The top right picture in yours looks like the early form of a Gatling gun. And the flintlock on the right looks like the revolver is soon on the way!

Cool pictures.

OMG, those are beautiful! Love that antique stuff.
Modern military stuff too. That stuff is fine sculpture.

Hey, you ever see that movie in my pic, Undead?

No I haven't. Pretty good?

Bonafide goodness! Well it has a unique twist which kinda almost throws it for me in terms of pure zombie shit, but it's necassary and cool anyways. It stars Felicity Mason and Mungo McKay, and they make a great duo. There's other people too, and it's in Australia. Mungo McKay! Who can beat a name like that? Well he's got a literal crapload of guns, and the BEST concealed weapon scene EVUH!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATCH EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!!!!!

I have not seen anything like that before but it looks very interesting. Thanks for the picture and the info about the movie it came from. I will try finding it somewhere.

Takes gun aficionado to places it's never been!

Ever wonder why those guns didn't catch on? I'll give you a clue, they were very ineffective....

Ummmmmmmm......they were preludes to multishot guns today.
Whether or not they were effective doesn't matter. The founding fathers did have thoughts of guns that shot more then one round at a time when drafting the 2nd amendment.
You statement above leads the discussion nowhere.

You said 1-2 bullets at a time and I proved you wrong. So you insult me.
You're a real beauty.

How can they be idiotic if she posted actual pics of the actual guns?

The term "Assault Rifle" was created by Hitler. So you posses "Defense Rifles" that were named by your leader. (Dead leader)

i know what sturmwehr is, but i dont get your meaning dead leader?

He is calling you a Nazi lol.

Including government.

[image deleted]

nice doughnuts.

AMERICA!

and how many foreign invasions has America witnessed in the last 200 years?

Well if it counts one of the Japs in WW2 said that if they was to invade America they would be met with a gun behind every blade of grass. So I would say the lack of invasions speaks volume of the threat of an armed population.

It is one thing to knock through the frontlines and steamroll through with no more resistance. But when an invading force is going to have to fight for every inch, it makes them think first before invading.

I think it speaks for the sheer distances involved. America's greatest defence strength is the pacific and Atlantic oceans. The last war that threatened America was the war of 1812 and that was a war America started by declaring war. (America lost btw, even though it's people were armed and that is also where we get the name White House today)

bla bla bla keep prayin'

HA HA!
That's the best comment in this whole tired thread.

Thank you

Thank you!

make a point. Do it. Make an actual point that actually contributes to the discussion. I dare you.

ok, you say WE POSSESS DEFENCE RIFLE bla bla bla.
So did the past mass shooters, so will the future ones.

So keep praying after each shooting.
Keep ignoring that you are not reasonable with gun.
Keep saying that what work in other countries won't work for you cause you are SPECIALS.
Keep letting NRA rule the gun laws.
Keep being paranoïd.
Keep being scared for you and your children.

1: Not reasonable with a gun? 99% of gun owners happen to disagree south you

2: work is hardly the word for it. In Australia, gun violence went down at an equal rate after the ban. In England, a couple acid attacks and fertilizer bombs are just as bad as mass shootings over here. And don't forget that there are many other variables to keep into account.

3: the NRA doesn't control gun laws, seeing that places in the US do have gun control

4: if owning defenses for crimes is being paranoid, I'm fine with it.

5: you too, mate.

^ Been through this already, you yourself stated the same about NYC to a Brit memer about London just last week.

The suppossed 1% that do agree are notching up a tad too many casualties, or does not bother you any?

The NRA is a huge lobby, the biggest domestic one if I'm right, one that has contributed millions of dollars to the coffers of politicians who 'coincidentally' side with it.

The NRA has deployed bots to disseminate its propaganda, as seen on various social media platforms, including this one.

The NRA used to be the BIGGEST proponent of gun control, until business interests bought that out.

Exactly. The 1% are causing a lot of damage, so punish 1%, not 100%. I concede the NRA, but most political lobbies are similar.

1: 1% of the gun owner not reasonable is not worrying you

2: see what I mean

3: the NRA has total influence on, when it is not help from your law makers

4: what crime? I'm 36 and I never saw a situation requiring a gun. guess why? cause my population is not armed.

5: I told my kids to look right and left before crossing the road and not to talk to strangers. They are fine.

We had 3 people killed by an international terrorist group this year. Police took care of the attacker.

How many americans where killed by american with guns today?

So because I've never needed my car insurance, I should just get rid of it? Okay.

No it is ok to keep it because even if you get crazy you will not run into on insurance free zone and kill kids with you insurance papers ;)

Do you carry with you a backpack filled with anti venom for all the dangerous species in the US. No, you leave that to the medic. Leave the gun to the police is the same logic. Let the pros handle the situation.

I'm fine with gun training. I don't like having people on the street with weapons capable of mass murder and not knowing how to not accidentally commit it. The thing about your venom comparison is that gun ownership is prevention, while antivenom is cure. In fact, if you had a gun you could probably take care of both rather quickly. Also, the police ten minutes away when seconds count, but I'm pretty sure that most venomous species do not have venom that kills in ten minutes. About killing with insurance papers; only a small percentage of gun owners actually commit a mass shooting, so it follows suit that we punish and restrict the 1%, not the 100%. It's like burning all computers in a fire when one kid buys drugs on the silk road, or banning cameras when one teen sends a nude to some 45 year old living under his mom's basement.

HOHO! I may not be able to do basically anything with these insurance papers, but wait until you feel the wrath of my PAPERCUTS!
XD

Oh, and most of your second paragraph was appeal to authority.

I'm enjoying this contructive discussion, lets carry one

1. Do you need a gun if only robbers have guns?
To me the answer is no.

2. What makes your lifes so dangerous that you have to carry guns?

3. From what do you need to protect your house with a gun?

I do have a lot of stuff that I'm fond of not being stolen. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one, but other people do want to protect their stuff, especially if you live in a high-risk area. If only robbers have guns, then we would need guns.

I'm okay here in England

Look up "massacres in Europe" and you'll be suprized.

I know, but we have tighter gun controls. Harder to get anything. Doesn't stop the acid attacks.