I just hate hillary
@Cardboard Gladiator, I see a lot of people say this, and that's fine, but I never see any support following it. Personally not a big fan of her either, but people act as though she's a democratic Donald Trump and that's a problem.
@Slijkster, why so much hate towards trump
@Cardboard Gladiator, I don't really care much for Trump for reasons, but I can't stand Hillary! This election sucks
@Slijkster, she's a condescending bjtch that thinks the rules don't apply to her or her husband. She will say literally anything, if she thinks it will help her get elected.
@Cardboard Gladiator, honestly, it's just a matter of picking the shiniest turd at this point.
@big freedom, at least she's not pretty much the next Hitler. I don't care for Hillary but I think if Donald were to become president he would be one of the biggest threats to national security to ever exist. So if it came down to those two I'd go for Hillary.
@Tina Belcher, first "the lesser of 2 evils" is still a choice for evil. 2nd comparing an egotistical blowhard to one of the biggest mass murders in history makes me take nothing you say seriously.
Come up with better arguments than well at least she's not Hitler. That's not good enough to be president of the US.
@big freedom, I'm saying if it came down to those two, picking the lesser of two evils is a must. Not desirable but if it comes down it...
@big freedom, also many of trumps ideas are very similar to Hitler's, I'm not the only one that's drawn the comparison
@Tina Belcher, I want you to visit the website: yourlogicalfallacyis and look up "Texas Sharp Shooter" I can compare anyone to Hitler by looking at a couple instances.
Also "bandwagon". Just because other people claim something, doesn't make it correct.
Again, come up with a better argument. Yours are weak and don't help advance a discussion. Trump is nothing like Hitler, even if someone on TV says so.
@big freedom, I didn't say I believe it just because other people do, I merely said I am not the only one who has drawn the comparison. And it's more than just a couple of instances. Let me put it this way. Many of Trump's ideas are harmful to society overall, he is a globally disliked person as he has been banned from several countries. Therefore if he became president he would drive our foreign relations into the ground and very likely start a war for no good reason. Also one of his main agendas is "deport all the illegal immigrants" but if you look into the actual logistics and time and manpower that would take, it would bankrupt the country (even worse than it already is). Not to mention the prices of many goods would rise exponentially and in turn put a lot of people out of work.
@Tina Belcher, He hasn't been "banned from several countries". several countries have had other moron law makers grandstand to make a name for themselves. His deport all illegal immigrants policy is unworkable but he doesn't believe in it anyway. He's a business man that hires illegal immigrants because it serves his purposes. This does not make him Hitler. Also your economics are bad. The cost of goods would rise or fall with supply and demand. Having cheap labor keeps business profits high and wages low. Having a barrier to entry in the job market ( no visa, no job) would raise the pay for all Americans along with a rise in cost of goods. This is a net gain for us, because we're not burdened by schooling and paying for medical needs of illegals.
@big freedom, trump's for alienating muslims and if i'm not mistaken (which i might be cuz my source is my friend telling me this once) trump said he's cool with putting select people in camps... Again that's pretty insane so i could be wrong xD but i'm just saying his only flaw isn't that he's egotistical. Also i don't think hitler was a mass murderer... He didn't directly kill anyone. He was kinda just... A public speaker xD that happened to be awful
@big freedom, i like how you said his argument was weak, yet all you did was refer us to what other people said on some website. Nice job coming up with an independent thought, buddy. Proud of you
@big freedom, a raise in wages would cause a decrease in jobs. You understand money isn't limitless, right? A business has a set amount of money it's willing to pay employees... So if it loses employees that take cheap labor, even if it choses to spend that money on higher wages (rather than employing more people... Which would make more sense because it'd make up for the loss of employees) it'd mean it wouldn't afford to pay a greater wage to a greater amount of employees... So it'd hire less people. Unemployment would rise. It's pretty simple... At least this is what i'm thinking right now. If anyone can tell me something that makes better sense of that, please do. I don't want to say in any way that what i'm saying is fact. I'm just trying to make sense of everything.
@Obama the White, the money example above... Do you think wealth is like a pie? Everyone gets a certain amount, and when it's gone it's gone?
@big freedom, i mean... Money exists as an object... thus it can run out. So, in certain situations, yes it can be like a pie. The world doesnt work in absolutes; baked goods can be an adequate representation of money if the situation is right. What do you think about the situation? How would losing employees result in an increase in wages?
@Obama the White, now I see. That's a basic misunderstanding of economics. Physical money like dollar bills are just the symbol of the value. A piece of paper is only worth what someone is willing to trade you in exchange for that piece of paper.
Wealth is constantly being created. By investing, by invention, by a lot of factors. It's not something that can be parceled up and distributed until everyone has some. . Look at bit coin for an example of how wealth is built out of invention and ingenuity.
@big freedom, that makes sense i guess. Thanks
@Glorious Grapefruit, Do you feel it now?
@MrWonka, Mr. Krabs
@MrWonka, are you feeling it now*
@TrueJewBear, I said what I said, ya cub
@MrWonka, Ey. If ye wanna talk to a cub, I'll get to my son. You're talking to 1500 of big boy bear
@MrWonka, 1500 pounds*
It's absolutely unacceptable that Hillary can't be held accountable for Benghazi.
@NightShift Janitor, what happened in Benghazi. I'm really interested but I don't want to watch the Michael bay film since it would have too many American flags and lies
@NightShift Janitor, yeah I can't believe over 50 different mostly republican led investigations and hearings couldn't make up one thing to charge her with
@Hugh J Rection, Terrorrist attack on an American embassy.
@CriTiKa1, and how is Hilary imvovled
@Donald Drumpf, see the problem is she had the power to declassify or classify everything she sent. So all she has to say is she declassified it before sending. Does it make it smart? No. However it would make it not a crime.
@Hugh J Rection, there's a very real possibility she knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it. She also tried to make the attack look like a student protest, over an American made anti-Islam video, that just happened to turn violent. But it's been proven that this had nothing to do with the video and was a pre meditated attack. This she not only told to the American public but also to the faces of the victims families.
@jklyt1, yet, they have all of her emails and haven't found that proof yet. So. It's all GOP conjecture. After 4 years of a witch hunt with nothing to show for it, it's time they give up. And this is coming from someone who is not even a remote fan of Hillary.
@NightShift Janitor, you speaketh da truff? Daaang man...
@iOS9, I'm pretty sure they already said there were some gaps in her emails, I may be remembering wrong but if she were remotely smart she would have dumped anything even close to incriminating.
@iOS9, the FBI is investigating her as we speak, the person who set up the server was granted immunity, and they called the grand jury to order, last I heard the ruling is coming at the end of May. Even if they can't get her the head of the FBI said he publicly denounce her.
@jklyt1, considering the gaps were way before and after Benghazi, anything that would say she knew there was an impending attack would be there.
@HashSliningSlasher, and considering hillary's camp has been telling this dude to come forward, i almost guarantee they got nothing. Who knows. I might be wrong. But it's more than likely that I'm not.
@iOS9, ah see I didn't know that, regardless though she is being investigated for sending classified documents over a non government email. Lesser people have done time for this and I see no reason why she shouldn't either.
@iOS9, but from what I've read, it was her call on whether to send reinforcements to the embassy and she refused to do so. That being given, she killed those people. And when confronted about it, she said "What does it matter now? They're dead."
@Quoth the Revan, are you reading some right win conspiracy newspaper/website? Because those are the only people who think that.
@iOS9, actually she did say something along those lines, idk if it was exact but ya.
@jklyt1, this is what she said--- Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information.
@iOS9, well all I'd have to say to that is that it matters because she may have know on top of being pretty adamant about it being a protest until she was proven wrong. Then all of a sudden "what difference does it make".
@jklyt1, if you read the whole transcript, the senator is badgering her over and over about the same thing, which is when she said this. I don't like her, but the fact that the GOP has now had a couple hearings and multiple comities dig in into details about it for 3 years and haven't found anything yet. And given that one of the senators on one of the comities said "sure they worked, her pole numbers have gone down", point to this all being a witch hunt just to discredit her. Again, I don't like her. But witch hunts are witch hunts.
@iOS9, I guess. I mean I'm not fan of the GOP but Clinton is a cold hearted bjtch from what I can tell, so you'll have to forgive me for the lack of sympathy.
@jklyt1, I agree. I think she's a piece of trash.
@Bellith, incorrect. She was the Secretary of State, and as such she could declassify anything that was originally classified by the state department.
She did not have the authority to declassify documents that were classified by the CIA, NSA, etc...
From what the inspector general found and reported a few months ago, there were at least three emails that contained information classified above top secret, and classified by other departments.
1) a report from a CIA operative on the North Korean nuclear weapons program.
2) spy satellite images of troop movements somewhere (the report didn't release country or location to the public.)
3) information shared from the British Intelligence service, which was classified above top secret by An executive order from President Obama.
@iOS9, they haven't found anything...which is why a grand jury has been called, and the FBI ordered her to appear and answer questions?
Note: the FBI isn't like a local police force, lying to the FBI is a felony. And people are charged and convicted of lying to the FBI all the time, just ask Martha Stewart.
@talmet, yes. 3 years. And they haven't found anything. All the GOP is doing is looking more stupid every day by continuing the fraud. Feel free to hitch your wagons to it though. It's a free country.
@iOS9, they haven't found any thing?
So why has a grand jury been called?
Why has the FBI called Clinton to come in and answer questions?
Why does the FBI have 147 different agents compiling evidence?
Why was Clinton's IT guy offered immunity for his testimony?
Those are all things that happen when things have been found?
I mean....according to 5 sources from the FBI, if Clinton doesn't get charged, the director of the FBI has said he will make a public denouncement of Clinton, and a denouncement of the Justice department for putting politics ahead of the rule of law.
@talmet, 5 sources to who? Foxnews? They have missed more times about this than me trying to put from 150 yards out. Again. It's been 3 years almost 4. They've had 2 comities. One of which found nothing and said so! They've had two congressional hearings. And still nothing. The only people who think this will go anywhere are people who are on the fat right. Everybody else knows it's a witch hunt. Enjoy your witch hunt.
@iOS9, 5 sources to:
Three have spoke to CNN
One to ABC
One to Fox news
Still waiting on your opinion of the grand jury being called, or the IT guy getting immunity in return for his testimony to the grand jury....
@talmet, Hillary and her people have been telling her it guy to talk to them from the beginning. So. No opinion. Grand jury. There hasn't been one. And one isn't scheduled. When it happens. Then get back to me. Otherwise. ON WITH THE WITCH HUNT!!
@iOS9, it has been scheduled, stop just believing whatever the Clinton campaign tells you.
The IT guy talking to them, and being granted immunity are two completely different things...if you don't understand the difference, go learn something about how the legal system works.
@talmet, sorry dude. But every news outlet is saying "if a grand jury is called". One hasn't been scheduled. I know how the legal system works. Just because he asked for immunity doesn't mean anything wrong happened. He's covering his butt. I would do the same thing if my boss was being witch hunted and they wanted me to testify. And if you were smart, you would too.
@iOS9, I see...you're a clintonite who just goes by her press releases and has no information from outside her campaign. Got it.
In the future, you might want to check out multiple sources for your info....but whatever, have fun being a mind-numbed robot.
@talmet, actually. I think Clinton is a douche bag. I don't like her. I just don't like the misinformation people like you are spouting. Continue on with your witch hunt. Would you like a stake to burn her at? I know people in Salem who will help you. Good luck with the bending of truth!
@iOS9, none of what I said is misinformation.
I notice you ignored the truth about the sources....
I don't remember their names, but:
-former director of the FBI under Clinton spoke to CNN
-former director of the FBI under Bush W spoke to Fox
-former director under Bush Sr spoke to ABC
-former deputy director under Obama spoke to CNN
-"high level source, at the FBI" spoke to CNN
I'm sure the director of the FBI under Clinton is a right winger...and probably part of the vast-right wing conspiracy, right?
You liberals crack me up...
@iOS9, the former director under Clinton even went further, and said there is so much evidence that if the AG doesn't indict Hilary, there'll be a mass walk out of the FBI in protest....
@talmet, a) not a liberal. I vote the person not the party. Voted bush twice. B) you're information is from "former" directors who aren't privy to the situation. Yeah. That's good data. Keep trying using misinformation to support your claims. Have a good day. You're not worth mine or anybody else's time.
@iOS9, 3 former directors who still have the inside information due to having contacts.
1 former deputy director who retired less like 3 years ago, so still has friends and people he worked with for 20+ years.
1 current high level agent...
All of those people are privy to more information about what's going on than either of us, or the Clinton campaign....but keep your head buried under the sand and keep repeating your mantra "witch hunt, witch hunt..." That'll convince people...
Oh and if you aren't a liberal, then you are just an uniformed voter. Try reading more sources, not just campaign press releases.
@jklyt1, so you're blaming her based on a POSSIBILITY that she could have known it was coming. Cool
@Obama the White, all I've blamed her for is not handling the situation correctly (I.e. lying about it being a "protest", and immediately finding a random scapegoat) I said she is being investigated because there is a POSSIBILITY she knew it was coming, not to mention she should have known how highly illegal it is for her to use a private email for classified information.
Should the computer industry be held accountable for cyber bullying and the subsequent suicides that have come from it?
Ofc they shouldn't be held accountable for that, they should be held accountable for using money in order to gain political power and prevent gun laws from becoming stricter... OMG WHAT HAVE YOU PEOPLE DONE. YOU HAVE TRIGGERED ME OH GOD MAKE IT STOP.
Keep politics away from this app
Stand back, I know first aid! I specialize in "get the fvck over it."
Car manufacturers have to include safety controls...
@J0hn L3nn0n, guns have this little thing on it called a safety.
@MetalHeadTony, I sense a Hilary lover down voted you
@funny pics veteran, a Hilary lover? I thought beastiality was considered animal abuse.
@MetalHeadTony, weird, doesn't seem to stop them from killing innocent people. Maybe they should call it "only murder intended people" instead
@LeShook, funny, safety on cars, hammers, knives, blunt objects, big sticks, bombs, and poison doesn't seem to help either. Maybe we should make a rights free zone. That would help.. Right?
@The Silver Shroud, um, are you buying a lot of bombs and poison?
And if sticks, blunt objects, and knives were as dangerous as guns, it's all we'd give our soldiers.
Not sure why people think having guns for personal use is a right, when the 2nd amendment frames it in the context of both a militia AND security of the state... But sure let's fear losing the right to have devices whose sole purpose is killing. "Oh noes! They're trying to slow down our ability to murder stuff! It's unconstitutional, and worse it could save lives. They hate freedom!"
Congratulations, you're the evangelist of people killing devices. Yay, you!
@LeShook, they do equip soldiers with knives and bombs..
@LeShook, I like this community too much to try and argue right now, but I will say this. I own many rifles, shotguns and pistols. I own them for personal defense, recreation, sporting events (skeet, trap, ect...) and hunting. If you feel that guns should be banned fine, but I love my right to defend my house and my country and I will exercise that right.
@The Silver Shroud, a bit moot, but I didn't say bombs and I didn't say we don't give them knives. I said if knives and blunt objects were equivalent in killing power to guns, we wouldn't bother giving soldiers guns... Just hammers and knives. So stop comparing them as if they're equivalent. They're not even close
@LeShook, whether or not they are used to kill people is also moot. Bombs are much more effective and easier to make than an automatic assault rifle. It's my constitutional right to bear arms, not only to protect myself, but my family from intruders and the government. If you don't like guns, go to any of the places where they are outlawed and have no rights. North Korea would be a good place to start.
@LeShook, now if you would be so kind as to leave me alone or wait five hours, I'm on a date.
Jeez you Americans love your guns
I downvoted this pic because even though i agree with the burn here and think this is funny myself, i know this is a massively divided issue and is a suckerpunch style funny. I think the media including funny pics should stay neutral of hotly debated issues like this. It's too commonly accepted to see one sided opinions all over the place.
Do car industries try to get children to drive their cars? Do they perpetuate lies to back up the cowardly, imaginary fears of whole groups of people? Have they even found anything illegal on those servers? All real questions, I don't know
@tv turtle 2025, are you suggesting gun companies try to get children to buy guns......I'm genuinely confused
@tv turtle 2025, Well, that's why they're investigating the servers. Also, how do gun company do those things? I know the first one is a blatant lie, because even the NRA tells people to hide guns somewhere kids can't find them. And how do gun companies perpetuate lies?
@tv turtle 2025, well for one gun companies don't advertise to kids. As far as the making up lies, I know the NRA does that but I don't think I've seen many gun ads saying that groups of people will attack you (they usually just say, hey look how cool this gun looks you should buy it).
@CriTiKa1, a lot of states actually even have laws in place that guns have to be secured when not in use so that children and people that aren't supposed to have them can't get access to them.
@Jeb Bush, well not that it's for kids but there is a double barrel pistol being produced that is meant to look like a phone and is technically not illegal. Looks cool but is clearly incredibly wrong
@Runnin with scissors, How is that wrong? It's designed specifically for concealment, there're hundreds of guns designed for concealment.
@CriTiKa1, ya but imagine a kid finding a gun that looks like a phone and not knowing it's a phone. They could even forget about it thinking its a phone and leave it on the table or something. Concealed weapons in general are pretty unnecessary except in some kind of law inforcement job and then I'd rather have a gun with more than two shots. Wrong was the wrong word dangerous would be better.
@Runnin with scissors, I still don't see the issue. It doesn't matter if it looks like a phone or a gun. Leaving a gun "on the table our something" where a kid has access to it is a problem. I've seen a gun modified to look like a the NES Zapper from Duck Hunt, and people online were furious. But if a kid finds it and it just looks normal, they're still going to play with it. If you're practicing proper gun safety, it doesn't matter what it looks like.
@the fork, I disagree my family practices safe gun control but I've shot friends with air-soft to nerf guns. If a gun looks like a toy it can deceive more people and personally I'd be more interested in checking out something that looks like a phone than a gun even if I knew it was a gun.
When u use a car correctly u can drive save whereever u want, when u use a gun correctly u kill somebody...
In fact if u use a gun incorrectly they get less lethal
@barir, Who said you have to shoot the gun at somebody? Consumer grade guns are not manufactured for you to buy one and murder somebody. Theyre made for hunting and self protection. Not to go shoot at people willy nilly
@Pijamas de gato, ummm... self protection from???
@TheMonkeyGod, Intruders? It is one thing if you shoot a man down when he is trying to take your life, it is another if you are just out and about killing people like it's a sport
@Pijamas de gato, so then your counter argument to barir is self defeating. They didn't say murder, they said kill, simply the act of taking life. So you actually have validated their argument in your counter argument. A gun used correctly is designed to kill. It's not really something you can say is wrong... well you can but you'd be an idiot.
@TheMonkeyGod, It is not manufactured for you to buy and kill people with though. That is what Im saying. Gun manufacturers do not make guns for you to buy and kill a PERSON with it
@Pijamas de gato, well, you don't dig holes with them... you don't carve meat... you don't use them to cut trees... oh man...what is its they are designed for again?
@TheMonkeyGod, Guns are not sold for you to buy it and kill people. Kill animals? Have you ever heard of hunting? What you are telling me is that anyone who buys a gun has intent to kill somebody?
@Pijamas de gato, i always use assault rifles and pistols and sub machine guns for my hunting. How about you?
Also for bonus points. Where did I say designed to kill people? I said designed to kill.
@TheMonkeyGod, Then what are you arguing? I never said they werent designed to kill. Obviously they are. What else are you going to do with it? Take it on a walk? Go to the park?
@TheMonkeyGod, you can't even get automatic rifles without going through more trouble than its worth. Don't want to kill? Get a low caliber. Want to protect you and your family from potential threats? Carry a gun.
@barir, Whenever I use a gun correctly the bullets hit a paper target about 20 yards away. And as far as I know, I haven't killed anyone. I guess I must be using them wrong.
@TheMonkeyGod, Ha, "assault rifles". You've never touched a gun in your life if you think people hunt with assault rifles and sub machine guns. Hell, the cheapest sub machine guns are 60 year old Uzis that cost $20,000. Something your average gun owner will never be able to buy. Also, I've never killed anything with my guns. I guess I'm using them the wrong way.
@CriTiKa1, it's called parody dumb arse. I was responding to a previous comment that guns are only used for hunting. Perhaps you might have read the whole conversation before commenting.
Good for you doing only target shooting. Clearly your use of guns defines precisely what guns are designed to do. Oh, by the way, that was sarcasm. I thought I should tell you because I don't think you would have figured it out.
@Pijamas de gato, you're trying to argue that guns are not manufactured with the intent of killing people. I'm pointing out that guns are made expressly to kill. What depends on the person using it. Some guns though are made with the express intent of killing people. Which you tried to argue aren't. A hunting rifle will still kill a human just as well as a hand gun. Sometimes more effectively.
@The Silver Shroud, here read this, an actual study, http://m.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html
@TheMonkeyGod, to be honest, I'm glad I love in a country with sensible gun laws where I don't get shot at a cinema, or local place of interest, or shopping mall, schools or education facilities and my children don't need to be taught what to do if a shooter is coming through the school. But enjoy your second amendment... seems somehow more important than human life.
@TheMonkeyGod, Yeah. Military grade weapons. You cant just walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 like youre buying yourself a soda
@Pijamas de gato, though they are still available and have really no place in the home. No automatic or semi automatic really is.
@TheMonkeyGod, If you know how to use it, then there shouldnt be a problem
@TheMonkeyGod, By the way, my comment was pointing out that there is no "right way" to use a gun. Something that you somehow missed even though I made it so blatantly obvious. Once again, your ignorance of guns shines through your comment. How about you try educating yourself on a topic before trying to debate it next time, mmk?
@TheMonkeyGod, There are hundreds of thousands of people who have only used their guns to shoot at targets as a stress reliever. Saying that guns were ONLY made to kill is pure ignorance. Sporting guns have a huge market share in the gun market. Those are guns specifically designed for sport shooting, you know, like they have in the olympics. Since you're not even American, you have no business arguing about American issues.
@CriTiKa1, I have every business. What you guys do effects much more than just your country. Like must illegal firearms in my country come from your county.
@CriTiKa1, hahaha... you say there is no right way to use a fun and call me ignorant. Target weapons, pure target, make up the smallest market share. For starters. Second. Well pointing the gun away from yourself is a great start. Your argument is stupid. Seriously. Your saying because a tiny number use target weapons then the whole gun market is directly represented by this. And still trying to argue that they are not a weapon.
The difference is that the point of a car isn't to kill people, that is the purpose of a gun. It's not that hard.
@Dragoon0106, lol wrong on so many levels. Do you not even know the constitution? It's for self defense. Other guns such as rifles are used for hinting
@tmo0792, ok multiple things here, a gun's purpose is not defined by the constitution, it's not a firearm instruction manual. Two, the purpose of a firearm is to kill, I didn't say murder but to kill. Whether it be in self defense, anger, or I suppose to kill animals as well and I said people so I apologize. But a car is made to transport, a firearm is manufactured to end life and with that purpose comes responsibility of those manufacturers to make sure that purpose is used as they want.
@Dragoon0106, the second ammendment was partially (key word "partially") based on the English bill of rights when it came to bearing arms here is a quote from history on the 2nd ammendment. "The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."
@tmo0792, my point is that neither document says anything about what the purpose of firearms is. They might say why they think citizens should have guns, but the purpose of a gun is to end life. That's it. What lives you end may depend on your beliefs but the gun itself doesn't have a preference, it's job is to kill. This isn't a political statement at all.
@Dragoon0106, but the reason we are allowed to have guns (which is what this whole conversation and thread is about) is and was originally for protection and self defense. So therefore there is no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to have guns. We take away guns then murderers, robbers, and terrorist (which will probably still have them anyway) will find something else to do what they were going to do anyway. The evil is in the heart of man not in an inanimate object.
@tmo0792, that isn't what the conversation is about at all. No one said anything about taking guns away. Senator Clinton stated that she believes gun manufacturers should be held accountable when guns are used in a way as to take a life that should not have been taken by anyone's stretch of the imagination. No one was coming for your guns.
@tmo0792, you have failed in every one of your comments to address the original argument... that's impressive... not good impressive though.
@TheMonkeyGod, lol okay so you honestly think she isn't hinting on the fact that guns should be controlled or taken away? She and all the other crazy folks up there have been trying to do this for years. Don't hand me that load of bologna
@tmo0792, the original preposition that you replied too simply asserted a difference between cars and guns. And gun reform isn't a bad thing.
@Dragoon0106, so you are telling us that you think a manufacturer of guns should be held accountable for something they had no control over at all? Just because someone used there product to commit a crime? What if someone used a GMC pickups truck to haul away a bunch of dead people that they killed? It is being used as it should, to transport cargo right? Should GMC be subject to lawsuits in that case?
@tmo0792, so your theory is that there's a conspiracy?
@Dragoon0106, funny how cars kill what, triple what guns do? Maybe we should ban cars..
@Dragoon0106, I agree the other guy isn't really countering your argument with what he's talking about. However, let me offer this: I own many firearms. I did not purchase them with intent to harm or kill anyone or any animal. I don't hunt. I simply use them for target shooting. The only things I'm killing are paper targets and plastic bottles. A gun is not made simply for killing.
It's a lot easier to get a gun than it is to get s car and be able to drive it
@Gay Rattlesnake , yet more deaths are caused by drunk drives then gun attacks.
@Bellith, because more people have cars obvs
@Bellith, well that's true and I don't have anything else to say
@Bellith, see but the driving deaths are generally accidents while the car is being used for its intended purpose, and many of the gun deaths are not. In addition if we look at hours cars are used versus hours guns are used, that's where you'll see the disparity.
@PVT Donut, actually the average number of guns per household is 4.4 where as the average number of cars is 1.98.
@Dragoon0106, the intended purpose of a car is to be driven drunk? Because that is the comparison being made. As for the hours in use that's an unfair comparison as guns mostly have a passive use, protection, where as cars have an active use.
@Bellith, what no that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. If that was the intended purpose I would expect car manufacturers to be held accountable because in its intended use, it caused the loss of life. My point is that in a guns intended use, ending life, it is used in a way as to cause terrible tragedies.
@Dragoon0106, the intended purpose of a gun is not to be used in a crime.
@Dragoon0106, to say a guns intended purpose is kill someone is simply being ill iformed. Guns intended purpose is most commonly to hunt, for shooting competitions/fun and protection.
@Gay Rattlesnake , I like the profile pic. A play on the Gadsden flag. But your comment sounds like you are against the 2nd amendment. Also, I can go and buy a car with no problem whatsoever. As long as I have money, I can buy it. A gun however, I have to have a clean background check and I have to take a safety class and wait 7 months to get my license in the mail after months of the feds checking to make sure I am safe to own a firearm. Not to mention having a car is a privilege. Owning a firearm is a right.
@2ndAmendment, owning them is a right, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can buy them. Just keep and bear them. We could change the laws to only allow guns to be given to soldiers and law officers, earned through their service, and they'd be able to "keep" and "bear" them as long as they want.
Gotta hold the food industry accountable for killing people with too much tasty food, and the water providers for drowning. Let's just break it down and blame our planet and solar system(and in a broader sense the universe) for sustaining life in the first place, thus giving way for all the pain, suffering and deaths on this planet. #KillTheEarth
A little off topic, a first grader ate his Pop Tart in the shape of a gun and said "bang bang". He got suspended but also got a lifetime membership to the NRA. He's a first grader...
Could have gone without the burn gif. It would have been funnier.
Chuck Norris doesn't believe in guns. Chuck Norris doesn't need guns.