irrelevant. a few people having fun does not justify the quantity of deaths that come as a direct result. note that i never said "guns are only for killing" (even the biggest idiot on earth like 90% of the people in this thread knows that some rednecks like to go blasting in the woods). i said that a guns sole purpose is to kill. that other people use them differently (practice? seriously? all of your reasons are related to them KILLING). ooh shooting sports. a small price to pay for 12000 lives, i think. try skiing? you are quite unlikely to kill anybody with a pair of skis.
allow me to translate your post:
herpy durp durp, herp derp. i herp and derp, derp a derp. herp a herp sicken derp derp.
because me wanting to ban all guns = i hate the troops, america, and jesus.
look up the definition of militia and get back to me, bro. a militia =/ joe shmoe with 30 guns in his basement waiting for Armageddon.
right, because i disagree with one aspect of government lets just disassemble the thing and start over. how about you take a deep breath, and accept that others have different (and more correct) opinions than you do.
right with out vietnam and OIF i could NEVER spout my opinion online. are you serious? get real.
LMAO guns are not meant to kill things. durp durpy durp herp durp.
the absurdity of this statement is mindboggling. who was the last person to go on a workplace shooting spree with a bow? who was the last person to shoot up a high school or college... with a bow? when do you see articles like this one, involving a bow and arrow. someone go find the stats on guns vs bow related violence. what a stupid thing to say. how many people were murdered last year with handguns? yeah about 12,000. get a grip.
i bow hunt myself, so if you want to compare the difficulty of our tasks, and which is a more useful tool, i welcome you to it. i'll bet you drive your land rover into the woods, screwing up native flora so you can use your ak47 to cut a few bucks down. big frickin deal, i am nowhere near impressed.
the 1st amendment is touchable, libel, slander, threats, etc. i would say in general, words do much less harm than bullets. just like the 1st amendment has clauses that rule out CERTAIN THINGS, so should the 2nd. the "terrorists" (ohhh, so scary), assuming they are american, have the right to free speech, yes.
right, so because something is "impossible" it should just be ignored, and anything contrary to it is "mute" (the word is moot, but i will let it slide). you sound a lot like the catholic church of around 1300.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Invention