By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 08 January 2013
Edit Thread
Runa216 said:
killerzX said:
Runa216 said:
killerzX said:
sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
NobleTeam360 said:
No why should everyone suffer because a few decide to go on a killing spree? 


Yeah people will really suffer by not having assault rifles at home.  Can you imagine living without an assault rifle, what a struggle

Holy shit, please educate yourself at least. This topic has been discussed for the last month and you still think an assault weapon = assault rifle.

both are made up terms, 'assault weapon' is just more made up. it is a term conjured up by anti-constitutionalist, progressive statist hoplophobes, soley to disingenously confuse the low information voter into thinking certain black guns a more deadly than some gun with wooden furniture.

wow....anti-constitutionalist?  you people will make up ANY word to discredit those who disagree with you, won't you?

wha?

its simple

constitionalist = somebody who supports the constitution

anti-constitutionalist= somebody who doesnt support the constitution.

the only thing being made up is the term "assault weapon"

I'm from Canada, and as a person who HAS the right to a gun, I find it hilarious to see your backwards nation screaming about the right to own a tool for killing.  Because that's the problem here.  The issue isn't guns, the issue is people who care more about owning and collecting guns than the actual implications of these devices, which are, at their core, tools for killing.  That's what a gun is for:  killing things.  When I hear about someone who fetishizes a gun or makes a big hooplah out of it, I don't see someone who just wants to protect their family, I see someone clinging to archaic beliefs who cares more about their own rights and entitlements than the betterment of the whole.  Capitalists, Republicans, Traditionalists, they're all code for "I'm selfish and care more about myself than others."

So you reprimand somebody for using an accurate term for the context such as "anti-constitutionalist" and then you go and label people yourself. Oh how great! I'm not a republican, nor a laissez-faire capitalist, nor a "traditionalist." I'm a human being who feels that the use of the terminology of "betterment of the whole" is a facade used to take away the rights of all people (the whole), and is another form of mobocracy. But of course, you're Canadian. Why not let Americans be the "backwards" nation we are, and why do you care so much about the internal affaris of the United States? The loyalists felt the colonies were backward in the 18th century, and they seemingly do today. Many things don't change no matter the times, it seems. Yet like it or not, it was these values that made the United States great: capitalism included. It was the freedom and liberty that enabled people to make the inventions and the discoveries they had made. To take that away is to destroy the character of what's great about the United States: why so many people have immigrated to this country. So of course people are going to look at the past for answers, and certainly nothing is wrong with that, because for all that was supposedly "backwards" about this country certainly something was done right: including the constitution itself.