Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of fun control laws, mainly because I don't think they do anything, and are a vestige of trying to prevent Black people from arming themselves in defense against White supremacists.

But I dislike even more the immature hero-wannabes who think that carrying a gun is going to make them powerful and equal. They'll piss themselves and do nothing useful but think they're Keanu Reeves. Anyone whose been in a combat situation or had a gun pointed at them knows it's BS.

Bottom line: banning guns isn't making us safer. Arming wanna-bes with concealed carry permits isn't making us safer. I'd rather work on why people are committing crime and why these men feel so insecure. Let's work through that before you shoot up a train.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of fun control laws, mainly because I don't think they do anything, and are a vestige of trying to prevent Black people from arming themselves in defense against White supremacists.

But I dislike even more the immature hero-wannabes who think that carrying a gun is going to make them powerful and equal. They'll piss themselves and do nothing useful but think they're Keanu Reeves. Anyone whose been in a combat situation or had a gun pointed at them knows it's BS.

Bottom line: banning guns isn't making us safer. Arming wanna-bes with concealed carry permits isn't making us safer. I'd rather work on why people are committing crime and why these men feel so insecure. Let's work through that before you shoot up a train.

I’ve been shot at, and I’ve shot (and almost certainly killed) other men, at the behest of the US Govt. And you are particularly incorrect in the bolded portion, as well as in some of your other assertions. In my experience, people revert to training in those situations, and they function accordingly. They do not piss themselves.

You think that classroom training plus 2 hours of range time is sufficient? Because that's the requirement.

Let's talk about the majority of CCP holders, or even the average. Because that's who is going to react poorly and make things even worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of fun control laws, mainly because I don't think they do anything, and are a vestige of trying to prevent Black people from arming themselves in defense against White supremacists.

But I dislike even more the immature hero-wannabes who think that carrying a gun is going to make them powerful and equal. They'll piss themselves and do nothing useful but think they're Keanu Reeves. Anyone whose been in a combat situation or had a gun pointed at them knows it's BS.

Bottom line: banning guns isn't making us safer. Arming wanna-bes with concealed carry permits isn't making us safer. I'd rather work on why people are committing crime and why these men feel so insecure. Let's work through that before you shoot up a train.

I’ve been shot at, and I’ve shot (and almost certainly killed) other men, at the behest of the US Govt. And you are particularly incorrect in the bolded portion, as well as in some of your other assertions. In my experience, people revert to training in those situations, and they function accordingly. They do not piss themselves.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of fun control laws, mainly because I don't think they do anything, and are a vestige of trying to prevent Black people from arming themselves in defense against White supremacists.

But I dislike even more the immature hero-wannabes who think that carrying a gun is going to make them powerful and equal. They'll piss themselves and do nothing useful but think they're Keanu Reeves. Anyone whose been in a combat situation or had a gun pointed at them knows it's BS.

Bottom line: banning guns isn't making us safer. Arming wanna-bes with concealed carry permits isn't making us safer. I'd rather work on why people are committing crime and why these men feel so insecure. Let's work through that before you shoot up a train.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

You genuinely haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

What difference does it make if people buy their firearms on credit? Are lower income people not entitled to self defense? The judge in NY properly saw through the State’s attempt to end run a binding Supreme Court ruling. The whole “sensitive places” argument is a dodge. Businesses can already eject anyone for any reason or no reason at all. And I hate to break it to you, but tons of guns have long gone in and out of NY day cares every day, on the hips of their law enforcement clientele and the powerful, privileged, politically connected few who were the only ones who, until recently, could get carry permits in New York. Before Bruen, half the States were shall issue and there was no glut of toddlers maiming each other with firearms at day care.

As for “radical historical revisionism,” that’s precisely what Bruen got rid of. Even the briefest research will establish that Bruen is wholly in accord with the intent of the Framers.

Your juvenile name calling and uninformed and/or dishonest exaggerations really expose your irrational, unreasoned, emotionally reactive non-logic.

+1. But you are wasting your breath. There is a vocal, but quite irrational, group of DCUM posters that aren't just pro-gun control; they absolutely HATE gun owners.

Hate is an understatement. There are multiple posters here who say things like “I hope the gun owners resist when we send federal agents to seize their guns so that they are shot and killed”. Absolutely miserable bunch of people. Warms my heart watching them take L after L in the courts.

the forum moderator is a big anti gun person and constantly censors any speech he doesn't like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

You genuinely haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

What difference does it make if people buy their firearms on credit? Are lower income people not entitled to self defense? The judge in NY properly saw through the State’s attempt to end run a binding Supreme Court ruling. The whole “sensitive places” argument is a dodge. Businesses can already eject anyone for any reason or no reason at all. And I hate to break it to you, but tons of guns have long gone in and out of NY day cares every day, on the hips of their law enforcement clientele and the powerful, privileged, politically connected few who were the only ones who, until recently, could get carry permits in New York. Before Bruen, half the States were shall issue and there was no glut of toddlers maiming each other with firearms at day care.

As for “radical historical revisionism,” that’s precisely what Bruen got rid of. Even the briefest research will establish that Bruen is wholly in accord with the intent of the Framers.

Your juvenile name calling and uninformed and/or dishonest exaggerations really expose your irrational, unreasoned, emotionally reactive non-logic.

+1. But you are wasting your breath. There is a vocal, but quite irrational, group of DCUM posters that aren't just pro-gun control; they absolutely HATE gun owners.

Hate is an understatement. There are multiple posters here who say things like “I hope the gun owners resist when we send federal agents to seize their guns so that they are shot and killed”. Absolutely miserable bunch of people. Warms my heart watching them take L after L in the courts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of guns being carried on Metro already. By criminals.

I’m confused as to why allowing people who are known non-criminals who have gone to the considerable trouble/training of acquiring a permit to legally carry a gun makes you frightened. Because frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. The people most likely to rob/assault/shoot you are already carrying their guns on the train/bus with you right now. Like RIGHT NOW.

The people LEAST likely to rob/assault/shoot you are the ones you feel you should fear the most?


Apply some critical thinking here.

Training? Joe Sixpack Chucklef**k can go buy a gun on credit. And according to MAGA federal judge in NY he has a right to carry that weapon into a daycare or virtually anywhere else other than a courthouse (of course) or givernment building thanks to the radical historical revisionism of Scalia and Thomas. So much for critical thinking, huh?

You genuinely haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

What difference does it make if people buy their firearms on credit? Are lower income people not entitled to self defense? The judge in NY properly saw through the State’s attempt to end run a binding Supreme Court ruling. The whole “sensitive places” argument is a dodge. Businesses can already eject anyone for any reason or no reason at all. And I hate to break it to you, but tons of guns have long gone in and out of NY day cares every day, on the hips of their law enforcement clientele and the powerful, privileged, politically connected few who were the only ones who, until recently, could get carry permits in New York. Before Bruen, half the States were shall issue and there was no glut of toddlers maiming each other with firearms at day care.

As for “radical historical revisionism,” that’s precisely what Bruen got rid of. Even the briefest research will establish that Bruen is wholly in accord with the intent of the Framers.

Your juvenile name calling and uninformed and/or dishonest exaggerations really expose your irrational, unreasoned, emotionally reactive non-logic.

+1. But you are wasting your breath. There is a vocal, but quite irrational, group of DCUM posters that aren't just pro-gun control; they absolutely HATE gun owners.