No, I have a means of defense to prevent it. It's not foolproof, but it's better than legislation.

i disagree

I like guns because they are shiny!

Not really, I think that they are overly praised by gun advocates. They are not more effective then other means of self protection, learn self defense fighting, carry pepper spray or a stun gun if you're that scared of other people. Don't walk down a dark alley. Hell, I don't even go into our greenhouse because I'm scared that hobos live there (I dreamt it).

I did answer. You're just hard of listening. Again. Read the freaking law. If you have trouble with the hard words, we can explain them to you.
Well, the ref didn't have a gun, that we know about, so maybe it's just having a penis. We need to keep them out of the hands of criminals too...only the police should have penises.

You were kidding about rape, right?
Considering he flattened Derkotch, I think we can be certain he was aware it could get violent. So Derkotch is at fault for not retreating...still blaming the victim, I see. Derkotch is more guilty for having a gun he didn't fire than his assailant was for having a fist he did. Yes, indeed, by all means let's go back to the days when muscle and size made might.

Shiny guns are all well and good on display, but in darkness a subdued finish is less likely to betray your location.

So why exactly did the asshole get out of his seat and start the whole ball rolling? That kind of childish lack of self control about a fucking kids game is a perfect example of "who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun"

I submit that gun ownership should be a privilege, like driving a car. Not a right.

I want to know if Maggie thinks that whipping out his gun was justified. You did not answer that.

And then proceed to pull a gun in a fist-fight. What a "victim" this guy is.:violin:

To a certain extent (no pun intended) a gun is a penis. Just ask Freud. Hmmm. That explains a lot.

He got out of his seat because he was packing a big gun, not penis.:p

You're damn right!
:applause:

One man's answer, No Treason.

Having a firearm means you don't have to be a prisoner of fear and avoid places.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../Posters/9.jpg

Testy, much, rk? Clearly you didn't follow the link. My enthusiastic support of footfootfoot's post was specifically about the part.

You've read enough of my posts to know my respect for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We are a nation of laws and there are several scenarios where someone would be prohibited from owning a gun, in case you're tweaked about the "privleged" part.

As to your statement:
I'm not buying it.

Your gun is your security blanket?

*I* don't have a firearm, and *I* am no prisoner of fear. And I go where I want to, when I want to. And the places I avoid without a gun are places I would avoid with a gun. There's no place I can only go to with a gun.

There are people limited from owning guns. People who are violent criminals and have a history of violent mental illness. That is enough.
A right is a Right. That is all.