It couldn't happen here, until it does ...active shooter on MSU campus

[Herbie Hancock 7347]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I will confess to not following the membership of individual seats of the Michigan state legislature that closely.  Shame on me.

IDGAF.  Dude said the right thing at the right time.  More leaders -- a LOT more leaders -- should do the exact same thing.  

Thank you for being honest. I don’t disagree at all with what he said. I just don’t understand how one can apply such verbose, hyperbolic statements towards a person as you did him with having never heard of him before two hours ago. 

[South Austin 52496]

1 minute ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Thank you for being honest. I don’t disagree at all with what he said. I just don’t understand how one can apply such verbose, hyperbolic statements towards a person as you did him with having never heard of him before two hours ago. 

He's the best representative in the history of Michigan, and the universe.

[YGIFS 19450]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Previously had him on felony gun charges, reduced to misdemeanor.  In other words, we knew he was a danger to society, specifically with firearms, then kept him legally able to own them because...reasons.   Timeline. 

Yeah, that seems like it should be more of an area of common ground for proactive gun violence prevention.  I don't like DA's letting violent criminals outta jail early any more than you (I'm more tough on crime than most CR posters due to some shit in my family's past), but let's all at least agree that if somebody does get out early/pleaded down/ or not jailed at all...they don't get to buy potent weapons that same fucking week.  We'll clean up the Criminal Justice system later on I suppose, but for all the violent assholes with violent charges hanging over them, maybe let's stop issuing carte blanche weapons vouchers in the name of the Bill of Rights?  Guy can't pass a background check to work at a fucking Wal-Mart, but he gets to legally own a duffel bag full of rifles?  Da FuH?  

[Brisketexan 105127]

2 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Thank you for being honest. I don’t disagree at all with what he said. I just don’t understand how one can apply such verbose, hyperbolic statements towards a person as you did him with having never heard of him before two hours ago. 

I celebrate anyone who does the incredibly right thing at the incredibly right moment.  The rest of his platform/political history may be militant veganism and hating puppies -- I don't care, he got THIS perfectly right.  But.....

Just now, South Austin said:

He's the best representative in the history of Michigan, and the universe.

South Austin gets it.

[Revolution512 1487]

Just saw a Sandy Hook survivor was also on campus for this one. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Revolution512 said:

Just saw a Sandy Hook survivor was also on campus for this one. 

Is her name Sara Conner?

[Brisketexan 105127]

Just now, YGIFS said:

but let's all at least agree that if somebody does get out early/pleaded down/ or not jailed at all...they don't get to buy potent weapons that same fucking week. 

The SCOTUS laughs at your shenanigans.  Following their precedent, the 5th circuit just held that a dude who is a clear threat of domestic violence to his partner, who maybe says expressly "I'm going to shoot you dead with a .45 I'm gonna buy tomorrow" CANNOT be prohibited from possessing a firearm, because there is not a "longstanding tradition dating back to the time of adoption of the 2nd amendment" to limit possession on that basis.

In short, our current SCOTUS would likely find that restricting this dude's right to possess a firearm for any reason would have been unconstitutional.  The law has now been made: all the guns that anyone anywhere wants, no limits, no restrictions.  It's awful reasoning, it creates an artificial test going back in time WITHOUT applying the most OBVIOUS restriction in place at that time (the restriction that it took you a fucking full minute between shots because every goddamned firearm in existence at that time was a muzzleloader), and it can and will result in more stacks of bodies.

Which, as has been noted repeatedly, is EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT.  We the people have voted for people who want this, an appoint judges who will create this regime -- this is the system WORKING AS INTENDED.  America the Meatgrinder, sing it with me!

[YGIFS 19450]

Some say Ranjeev is the Susanna Hoffs of the Michigan State House of Representatives.  Still others have called him the Sela Ward of the Wolverine State's Elected Officials.  A lot of people, fine people, many people...are saying he is possibly the embodiment of both.  How many people we talking about exactly?  Two.  Brisket & Frank Stallone.  And one of them has brain damage.  

[crash_davis 23111]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Previously had him on felony gun charges, reduced to misdemeanor.  In other words, we knew he was a danger to society, specifically with firearms, then kept him legally able to own them because...reasons.   Timeline. 

Recent court rulings have allowed people charged with domestic violence to keep their guns and people under felony indictments to be able to buy guns. 

We have leaders who are hell bent on allowing anyone and everyone to have access to guns because America, fuck yea.

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

Recent court rulings have allowed people charged with domestic violence to keep their guns and people under felony indictments to be able to buy guns. 

We have leaders who are hell bent on allowing anyone and everyone to have access to guns because America, fuck yea.

Ok, but aside from DM and the like.  Let's discuss people who are committing felonies WITH firearms, and we can clean up from there? How about we begin taking actual crimes committed WITH firearms, and not pleading them down?  Seems super simple. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Ok, but aside from DM and the like.  Let's discuss people who are committing felonies WITH firearms, and we can clean up from there? How about we begin taking actual crimes committed WITH firearms, and not pleading them down?  Seems super simple. 

Side discussion: does that include pigs?

[Brisketexan 105127]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Ok, but aside from DM and the like.  Let's discuss people who are committing felonies WITH firearms, and we can clean up from there? How about we begin taking actual crimes committed WITH firearms, and not pleading them down?  Seems super simple. 

[SCOTUS] I don't think so.  Enhancing a crime just because the person committing it was exercising his sacred, God-given, written in the Gospels by Jesus himself right to carry a firearm infringes on the 2nd amendment.  All such laws thus are unconstitutional. [/SCOTUS]

What you don't grasp yet is that you've gotten your wish: limitations on the right to possess a firearm are functionally dead now.  Anyone and everyone, at all times and in all circumstances, has a God-given right to carry whatever firearm they want, with no restrictions.  This is your paradise.  Bask in it.  But be sure to buy laundry detergent that removes bloodstains, because eventually, we're all going to get some splatter.

[crash_davis 23111]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Ok, but aside from DM and the like.  Let's discuss people who are committing felonies WITH firearms, and we can clean up from there? How about we begin taking actual crimes committed WITH firearms, and not pleading them down?  Seems super simple. 

It doesn't have to be either or. Imprison for life or execute motherfuckers who commit crimes with a gun. And stop allowing everyone to have access to guns. We neither have the conviction to punish or prevent.

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, Patricio Swayze said:

Side discussion: does that include pigs?

Sure.   That suggestion should take 90 seconds to fix.  A firearm involved in your crime, you are never allowed another one. Youre done.  Aye?  Done.   Ok, now, onto the rest of the folks that shouldn't have them, and so on.  

[mchookem 16334]

10 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Just saw a Sandy Hook survivor was also on campus for this one. 

unbelievable

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/02/14/michigan-state-univeristy-shooting-student-jackie-matthews-sandy-hook-newtown-tiktok/69902925007/

 

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

[SCOTUS] I don't think so.  Enhancing a crime just because the person committing it was exercising his sacred, God-given, written in the Gospels by Jesus himself right to carry a firearm infringes on the 2nd amendment.  All such laws thus are unconstitutional. [/SCOTUS]

What you don't grasp yet is that you've gotten your wish: limitations on the right to possess a firearm are functionally dead now.  Anyone and everyone, at all times and in all circumstances, has a God-given right to carry whatever firearm they want, with no restrictions.  This is your paradise.  Bask in it.  But be sure to buy laundry detergent that removes bloodstains, because eventually, we're all going to get some splatter.

Glad you're able to be serious about the subject.  As long you keep all yours, right?  I know, I know, you'd give them all up rah rah rah for this thread today.  Before you return to the hunting and gun threads on this site. 

2 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Imprison for life or execute motherfuckers who commit crimes with a gun.

Sounds good. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Sure.   That suggestion should take 90 seconds to fix.  A firearm involved in your crime, you are never allowed another one. Youre done.  Aye?  Done.   Ok, now, onto the rest of the folks that shouldn't have them, and so on.  

Interesting take. Should they also lose their right to vote? 

[Herbie Hancock 7347]

Interesting take. Should they also lose their right to vote? 

Only if they’re female.

[crash_davis 23111]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Sounds good. 

So what about the prevention side? 

[Brisketexan 105127]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Sure.   That suggestion should take 90 seconds to fix.  A firearm involved in your crime, you are never allowed another one. Youre done.  Aye?  Done.   Ok, now, onto the rest of the folks that shouldn't have them, and so on.  

Will never happen.  You really, really need to read the Bruen opinion, as well as the recent 5th circuit opinion following it.  You have your "everyone gets a gun, everywhere, all the time" paradise now.  Here's a good summary of the Bruen rule and its results:

Quote

Yet Bruen held that this test stretches the bounds of Heller because it gives too much discretion to state officials. After Bruen, the constitutionality of gun laws will be based on whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the activities the laws are regulating. If it does, then “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition” to set boundaries on gun use.

This test seemingly only applies to the actual regulation itself, while not considering that the weapons being regulated have evolved from muskets to semi-automatic weapons since the days of the historical backdrop the Court uses in its analysis. Under this reasoning, the guns being regulated continue to evolve, but the regulations on those guns cannot.  

It is a terrible, awful, nonsensical, logically insupportable decision.  But it's the kind of decision y'all have been praying for, and stacking the SCOTUS for.  So spare us your thoughts that "maybe we could regulate this or that."  If you can't find that EXACT regulation on the books in 1791, then it's unconstitutional.  So, see, a regulation on, say, magazine capacity is unconstitutional, because there WERE NO such regs back in 1791.  Now, you may say "why Brisket, that's because there was no such thing as high-cap magazines in 1791," and I would reply "shut up, commie!  It wasn't on the books then, so suck it!"

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I already gave up my guns. Oh wait, I never owned one to begin with. I’ve made it 46 years without the precious things. Weird.

[locodos 5387]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What you don't grasp yet is that you've gotten your wish: limitations on the right to possess a firearm are functionally dead now.  Anyone and everyone, at all times and in all circumstances, has a God-given right to carry whatever firearm they want, with no restrictions.  This is your paradise.  Bask in it.  But be sure to buy laundry detergent that removes bloodstains, because eventually, we're all going to get some splatter.

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, crash_davis said:

So what about the prevention side? 

We're assuming we've taken care of the gaping holes in our existing laws, that we just discussed?  Dunno, have to think.  Looks like increased age wouldn't have fixed last night, as far as I've seen, had nothing to do with the boogieman rifle, and doubt the guy was an incel at 43.  

[Brisketexan 105127]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Glad you're able to be serious about the subject.  As long you keep all yours, right?  I know, I know, you'd give them all up rah rah rah for this thread today.  Before you return to the hunting and gun threads on this site. 

I have long advocated for a middle ground -- one that would allow me to keep most of my firearms (locked in a safe when not in use), etc.  But that middle ground is gone, because the "mah gunz" crowd has accomplished exactly what I have long warned against: total victory, with zero compromise. 

Thus, this issue  an only be dealt with one way: total victory, with zero compromise.  Eventually, the scales will tilt, and you and I will lose all rights regarding firearms.  Because by making it all or nothing, eventually, the issue turns up "nothing."

Again, read Bruen and the recent cases applying it, and tell us how ANY restrictions on firearms pass muster.  Not under the current courts we have they won't.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Brisketexan

[YGIFS 19450]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Interesting take. Should they also lose their right to vote? 

I was thinking about this.  I wrote an article in law school about attaching all the "post-jailtime" penalties associated with a felony to a deal that got cut down to a misdemeanor.  If it was not an egregiously violent act, and they get less jail time, fine---that's a separate debate.  But the other sticking points that come with a felony besides jail time (parole, community service, case worker, child visitation rights/custody, voting, gun ownership, background check, travel abroad, etc.)...should that still stick with the perpetrator and not the crime itself?  This was almost 25 years ago so I don't remember but it struck a chord with the class (this was in far-left Northern California but the school itself was predominantly conservative).  

Again, not talking about DA plea deals and all that, that's a whole other thread, even a whole other forum.  But can somebody arrested/arraigned/even indicted for a felony weapons charge...even if they never see a jail cell and plead down to a misdemeanor...should they be forbidden from ever owning a firearm ever again?  It's a legit question and somewhat settled case law, however fucked up, as of late.  

[crash_davis 23111]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

We're assuming we've taken care of the gaping holes in our existing laws, that we just discussed?  Dunno, have to think.  Looks like increased age wouldn't have fixed last night, as far as I've seen, had nothing to do with the boogieman rifle, and doubt the guy was an incel at 43.  

Lulz. We aren't doing shit to keep guns from people who shouldn't have guns. The courts have spoken and are speaking to reduce limits to gun ownership.

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I have long advocated for a middle ground -- one that would allow me to keep most of my firearms (locked in a safe when not in use), etc.  But that middle ground is gone, because the "mah gunz" crowd has accomplished exactly what I have long warned against: total victory, with zero compromise. 

Thus, this issue  an only be dealt with one way: total victory, with zero compromise.  Eventually, the scales will tilt, and you and I will lose all rights regarding firearms.  Because by making it all or nothing, eventually, the issue turns up "nothing."

Eh.  Not sure about that.  Lets say half the population gives up their shit, that's 150+mm still floating around in society.  How many people you know that have turned in their braces?

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Lulz. We aren't doing shit to keep guns from people who shouldn't have guns. The courts have spoken and are speaking to reduce limits to gun ownership.

Agree.  Fuck, even if you get a felony FIREARM charge, just plead it down.  thisisAmerica.gif

[Gatorubet 30237]

I still need a Chicago deaths and a clip/magazine correction to hit my card. 

[Baboontyme 2810]

And then there's the writer and editors at the NYT who thought this would be a great time to drag our name through the mud again and bring up Larry Nassar. Not providing a link. 

[Brisketexan 105127]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Eh.  Not sure about that.  Lets say half the population gives up their shit, that's 150+mm still floating around in society.  How many people you know that have turned in their braces?

Cool.   Then, we'll end up with an authoritarian government coming after people who held onto their guns.

Again, this is how the "all or nothing" game plays out.  Right now, the "mah gunz" people have "all," and they have their temporary victory.  But, having FOOLISHLY set the rules of the game to be entirely binary, the "nothing" outcome is becoming more and more inevitable.  The only two options are 1) a society where everyone can have all the guns all the time, or 2) nobody can have any guns at any time.

This is how binary games go.  Reasonable gun owners have been sounding this alarm for years, but we've lost.  We are irrelevant.  We are going to get swept up in whatever binary outcome controls at a given time.  Today, I have my guns.   Someday, in the future, I won't.  Because the other binary outcome will inevitably prevail.  Which is the stupid, stupid, shortsighted, braindead way that the "mah gunz" crown insists on.

[YGIFS 19450]

Best I can offer you is East Lansing is near Detroit.  And people keep pointing out the shooters' age and race.  Best we can do.  

Again, I am more in line with the fuck-the-DA's/get tougher on crime crowd than I admit on here for myriad reasons.  But I gotta say, no matter our collective frustration on rampant crime in this country...it's a weird fucking flex to manifest that anger by supporting politicians and judges who want to keep those wrongly released felons armed to the fucking teeth.  Because that's really what we're talking about here once we strip away the usual bullshit.  

[Celery Man 20946]

35 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Just saw a Sandy Hook survivor was also on campus for this one. 

[Brisketexan 105127]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Right?  I mean, Revolution clearly misspelled "crisis actor."

[fattyflattie 4639]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Right now, the "mah gunz" people have "all," and they have their temporary victory. 

Flat out fucking false.  If so, please point me the full autos behind the counter at Academy, I'll go have my 7 yo pick one up?  Oh, you cant get one there?  Oh, and there's an age restriction on purchase?  So, hyperbole it is.  Cool, cool. 

 

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Reasonable gun owners have been sounding this alarm for years, but we've lost.  We are irrelevant.

This makes up probably 95% of owners, but "IrReLeVaNt".  Again, you're an intelligent man.  The theatrics are not becoming, and is severely detrimental to your posts. 

[rage-a-holic 4388]

10 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

They would move up from the Southern border, but the guns may not be produced in mexican factories.  

 

Yep. Ignore the clowns. Lots of guns come from the south.

https://businessinsider.mx/mexican-cartels-getting-more-weapons-from-new-source-2022-2/?r=US&IR=T

[Beau Vine 54221]

52 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yeah, that seems like it should be more of an area of common ground for proactive gun violence prevention.  I don't like DA's letting violent criminals outta jail early any more than you (I'm more tough on crime than most CR posters due to some shit in my family's past), but let's all at least agree that if somebody does get out early/pleaded down/ or not jailed at all...they don't get to buy potent weapons that same fucking week.  We'll clean up the Criminal Justice system later on I suppose, but for all the violent assholes with violent charges hanging over them, maybe let's stop issuing carte blanche weapons vouchers in the name of the Bill of Rights?  Guy can't pass a background check to work at a fucking Wal-Mart, but he gets to legally own a duffel bag full of rifles?  Da FuH?  

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!" people coming for you in 3...2...1...

[cactusflinthead 27598]

"The Galil is not the best one, but it does the job. I still get more requests to get cuernos, but when there is none available, a Galil from Central America is enough," El Güero said, referring to "cuerno de chivo," a nickname for the AK-47 meaning "Goat's Horn." 

So how many? Are they moving from Columbia to Mexico and then north?

Yeah, I am gonna need to see some evidence of that @rage-a-holic

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Right?  I mean, Revolution clearly misspelled "crisis actor."

[rage-a-holic 4388]

4 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

"The Galil is not the best one, but it does the job. I still get more requests to get cuernos, but when there is none available, a Galil from Central America is enough," El Güero said, referring to "cuerno de chivo," a nickname for the AK-47 meaning "Goat's Horn." 

So how many? Are they moving from Columbia to Mexico and then north?

Yeah, I am gonna need to see some evidence of that @rage-a-holic

 

Sorry, I didn't take a video the last time I was helping my crew bring guns through the Guatemala border.

Aside from "I live in Mexico and have friends all over Mexico who talk about this stuff", there are plenty of online articles about it.

[YGIFS 19450]

Absolutely, there are more manufactured weapons flowing into Mexico from the South.  Doesn't really explain the proliferation of mass shootings in the United States prior to 2020, nor the fact that majority of those instances were committed by legally purchased firearms within the United States' current borders.  

The drug trade in the U.S. visits enough violence upon itself, and does on rare occasions, take out innocent bystanders.  But by and large, as Omar would say, "It's all in the Game."  If you're not involved in the drug trade, you can quite easily avoid gun violence with the exception of a vengeful Ex or a mass shooting.  

That one person, in just ten years in this country, was involved in two mass school shootings is fucking insane to me.  And infinitely more terrifying than some Mexicans I will never see buying guns from a Central American I will never see.  I will, however, see more and more people I don't recognize at my place of worship, armed to the teeth.  That gives me pause every Sunday.  

[cactusflinthead 27598]

11 minutes ago, rage-a-holic said:

Sorry, I didn't take a video the last time I was helping my crew bring guns through the Guatemala border.

Aside from "I live in Mexico and have friends all over Mexico who talk about this stuff", there are plenty of online articles about it.

Ok then it should be easy for you to back up your claim.

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

14 hours ago, mchookem said:

 

The turn around time on that loop seems to be getting shorter and shorter.

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34710]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

[SCOTUS] I don't think so.  Enhancing a crime just because the person committing it was exercising his sacred, God-given, written in the Gospels by Jesus himself right to carry a firearm infringes on the 2nd amendment.  All such laws thus are unconstitutional. [/SCOTUS]

What you don't grasp yet is that you've gotten your wish: limitations on the right to possess a firearm are functionally dead now.  Anyone and everyone, at all times and in all circumstances, has a God-given right to carry whatever firearm they want, with no restrictions.  This is your paradise.  Bask in it.  But be sure to buy laundry detergent that removes bloodstains, because eventually, we're all going to get some splatter.

It is fucking grotesque for fatty to be posting on here. This gotdamn concern trolling, as if he gives a shit about any of these dead people beyond worrying that maybe this is the time we do something and it’s slightly harder to add another AR-15 to the collection. Don’t worry bruh. 
 

A court of appeals just ruled that you can’t stop people with restraining orders from buying guns under the rationale that the founders thought domestic violence was when the slaves fought back. We’re here because of dissembling fucks who claim they’d like to do something but just keep voting for the same shit because no politician proposes the exact policy they’ve arbitrarily decided they’ll be satisfied with. So guns for wife bearers! 
 

They can all get fucked. 

[Brisketexan 105127]

33 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Flat out fucking false.  If so, please point me the full autos behind the counter at Academy, I'll go have my 7 yo pick one up?  Oh, you cant get one there?  Oh, and there's an age restriction on purchase?  So, hyperbole it is.  Cool, cool. 

Oh.  You're referring to laws on the books at present.  Give it time, they'll be struck down.

Age limits?  Already being held unconstitutional:

Quote

Texas will no longer fight to ban 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying handguns in public. A judge ruled earlier this year that a state law banning the practice was unconstitutional, and Texas initially filed a notice that it would appeal. But Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw withdrew the appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week.

And there are dozens more such challenges working their way through various courts.

And read Bruen again.  Find me the "longstanding regulation" that was in place in 1791 banning fully automatic weapons.  What, you can't find one?  Well then, that regulation needs to be found unconstitutional.  We ALREADY have district and circuit courts following such reasoning regarding other gun regulations.  The only thing between your 7 yr old being able to buy a fully auto weapon is time (it will take a while for all of those regs to be challenged and struck down), and MAYBE store policy (although if Academy DID enact a policy like "yeah....we aren't gonna sell belt-fed .50 cals to elementary school students," it would be relentlessly attacked as a WOKE CORPORATION THAT HATES THE CONSTITUTION!"

[0xdeadbeef 1651]

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Thus, this issue  an only be dealt with one way: total victory, with zero compromise.  Eventually, the scales will tilt, and you and I will lose all rights regarding firearms.  Because by making it all or nothing, eventually, the issue turns up "nothing."

I want you to close your eyes and picture no alcohol at all.  Prohibition.  Can you see it? The Mobs. The crime. The hypocrisy. The wide spread disobedience.

Now imagine she's white with guns. 

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

Some say Ranjeev is the Susanna Hoffs of the Michigan State House of Representatives.  Still others have called him the Sela Ward of the Wolverine State's Elected Officials.  A lot of people, fine people, many people...are saying he is possibly the embodiment of both.  How many people we talking about exactly?  Two.  Brisket & Frank Stallone.  And one of them has brain damage.  

You had me at Susanna Hoffs (especially if she was sweaty).

Edited February 14, 2023 by DDD Dad

[rage-a-holic 4388]

3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Ok then it should be easy for you to back up your claim.

Why the fuck would I bother? People like you wouldn't believe it even if Vice and PBS documentaries confirmed it.

I'm not gonna post every fucking internet article on the subject; if you actually gave a shit about something other than your own narrative, you'd look yourself.

[DDD Dad 14339]

It's getting mighty cloaky in here.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

3 minutes ago, rage-a-holic said:

Why the fuck would I bother? People like you wouldn't believe it even if Vice and PBS documentaries confirmed it.

I'm not gonna post every fucking internet article on the subject; if you actually gave a shit about something other than your own narrative, you'd look yourself.

I read what you posted. I'll check out what you find. I didn't say anything about your source. You don't want to back it up that's fine. Don't ask someone else to do your work for you.

As it stands you have one source stating they would rather have an AK 47 but a Galil will do. Great. Now is that same gun from Columbia coming up through the border here? If so how many? 

But, hey if you don't want to put in the work to make your argument, duly noted.