Illinois just invalidated da banned concealed carry laws VOL. 3hunna BANG BANG

down here in florida silencers are legal ,they have them for automatics too.

dudes in north miami be having 120 round yoppas.

to get the silencers you need to contact the NFA get the tax stamp and 

get approval from the NFA
 
Last edited:
You really want to play this game?

:rolleyes :smh: :lol:

That doesn't mean anywhere close to meaning "mobs of viglantes hit the streets" after "young black hood kids"

It means all dudes that are like Zimmerman, a racist vigilante who needlessly carried a gun, will have clearance shoot every young black kid they feel threaten by if a stand your gorund law is passed too.

But of course, you only read want you want to see. Try again brah
 
can u give some examples of which nation is being opressed with disarmed citizens?
i didnt say they should ban guns or disarm citizens im saying they should focus more on improving the education system.
im fine with people having weapons if they have a license and are registered but i do have a problem with teenagers carrying guns.

Where in the world do teenagers get to buy guns legally let alone own them?
 
you can already see where this thread is going , mod's

should just lock this before this becames a race war

in 2 pages
 
Law abiding citizens should have the right to conceal carry. Im a LEO and as per HR218 i can legally carry in all states. The bad guys i encounter on a daily basis are carrying without CCWs so why make it harder for the law abidibg citizen? Illinois is heading in the right direction
 
So if it's not a mob, then how many Zimmerman's are out there?

How the hell I'm I suppose to now that?

I don't know what you trying to get at, because you question just seems kinda dumb.

I used the term "Zimmerman" to describe someone who is racist, is a vigilante, who needlessly carries a gun. Like George Zimmerman

So if 2 guys fits that description over 2000 guys, it doesn't matter either way.

Again, I said, if a "stand you ground law" (which to my knowledge Illinois doesn't have) is put into place also, that dudes fitting the "Zimmerman" description the freedom to shoot dead every black kid they feel threatened by. Like George Zimmerman did.

I never said it was definitely gonna happen, I never said this law alone was gonna make it happen. I specifically said if a second law was passed, a certain group, fitting a certain description, would have the freedom, to commit a certain act.

If I threw you off my saying "Lil Reese" because Reese has been linked to gangs and criminal activity, so you thought "young gang member committing crimes in the city of Chicago" Then my bad. But all I meant by that was a young hothead street kid from Illinois. Ninja used the GBE lingo in the title so I used it too as sort of a joke.
 
You implied that the Zimmerman case would happen multiple times now, implying there are ZImmerman's lying in wait to legally murder black youths. But you took issue with the term 'mobs'. So it's somewhere between a mob and a single instance. What number did you have in mind? You said it, not me. I'm not sure why you're getting defensive. I was only looking for clarification. If you don't have a number in mind, then why did you object to my taking 'mobs' from your original statement?
 
You implied that the Zimmerman case would happen multiple times now, implying there are ZImmerman's lying in wait to legally murder black youths. But you took issue with the term 'mobs'. So it's somewhere between a mob and a single instance. What number did you have in mind? You said it, not me. I'm not sure why you're getting defensive. I was only looking for clarification. If you don't have a number in mind, then why did you object to my taking 'mobs' from your original statement?

:smh: :lol: I'm done with you. You thought you had me with the quote, that didn't work, now you're backtracking.

I clearly said a if a 2nd law is passed, and I clearly said "would give clearance" not "would happen".

I don't have a problem with the "mob" part. I have a problem with you saying I said this law passing would lead to a flood of dudes hitting the streets blasting off on young black kids. WHICH I NEVER SAID.

Whatever man, pat yourself on the back, good arguemnt, job well done :rolleyes
 
Last edited:
To justify his decision, Posner reached all the way the back to the 18th Century, when settlers were required to carry guns outside the home to protect themselves against hostile Indians. While conceding there are no hostile Indians in modern Chicago, Posner argued that there are still hostile people lurking out of doors
I love how they,yes 'THEY',have the right to extend their reach as far back as they choose too in history,to justify their decision in the twentieth first century.
Hostile Indians?Now in todays terms it's simply "Hostile people",he didn't single anyone group out like they did in the 18th century but let's just read between the lines because in 2012 there are alot of "Hostile" people living in America.I think what's needed now is for him to actually define "Hostile people",the same way they did in the 18th Century because that's a broad scope.Which I doubt will happen.

The Zimmermans that wanna be Clint Eastwood gonna be out looking for reasons to blast the Chief Keefs for reasons like "loud music" and "loitering"
If it's something that stands, one thing that I hope it might do is spark that revolutional spirit that once was found in our communities.Just as,'THEY' can go back in time to help them make their decisions now,so can we.We can take a few pages from some inspirational people like Robert green "negroes with guns", Malcom X,"by any means necessary", and author's like Sam Greenlee "The spook who sat by the door".That's wishful thinking,though, the only problem I see with that is that most won't care too try to be able to tell the difference between a real "Hostile" threat and just some random person who might fit the description of what they subconsciously precieve to be a hostile threat.
It hasn't worked out well for Black males so far but maybe things will get better,with error come change.
 
I can't see how some citizens w/ guns are really going to go up against the military if **** hits the fan like you say.


We overthrew the British Empire so we could found our country.

Some citizens? Are you kidding? Have you been paying attention to gun sales in this country?

I know we did... but that's an extremely different scenario.

I have a gun too, but it's not because I'm about to go up and fight in a revolution. Don't just look at gun sales
 
so adding more guns to the equation will be better? :nerd:
they need to fix their education system so these young kids learn something


Look at every nation that is oppressed around the world. What do they have in common?


The citizens are disarmed and live in constant fear.


Some of you need to stop watching so much damn tv. Even the NFL is all about banning guns propoganda right now, it's pathetic.

I can't see how some citizens w/ guns are really going to go up against the military if **** hits the fan like you say.

implying the entire military would be willing to kill the American people. of course there are the crazies waiting for something to pop off here just so they can get their killstreaks up in their neighborhood, but you gotta remember the military isn't made of these rich dudes who run ****. the military is made of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, friends..

I'm betting the armed militias in the US would be going after the government and rich people first. please believe people have been planning for stuff like that for decades. would it go smoothly? hell no. would it work? probably not.

but let a million armed people march through DC demanding change though :wink:

I know what you mean fam. But look at other countries, same story, but military still goes ham on the people when need be
 
Argentina
Australia
China
France
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
Philippines
Singapore
Korea (North & South)
Spain
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
All somewhat oppressed nations. These countries are unable to revolt against out of control
governments run by banks because of gun ban laws. We can, we are just poisoned and lethargic.
Right, because even if guns were legal we could revolt against the government. A person as paranoid as yourself should know that guns will play a very small part if there is a revolution.
 
Argentina
Australia
China
France
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
Philippines
Singapore
Korea (North & South)
Spain
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
All somewhat oppressed nations. These countries are unable to revolt against out of control
governments run by banks because of gun ban laws. We can, we are just poisoned and lethargic.

Clearly the solution to Mexico's problems are putting more guns in the streets.


Clown,
 
Clearly the solution to Mexico's problems are putting more guns in the streets.
Clown,


:stoneface: Wow, did you even read the thread?


You are obviously insinuating that the streets are dangerous, so why put more guns on them? Why are they so dangerous?

Because normal people like you and me can't fight cartel guns with butter knives can we? Nobody gets robbed in Texas because everyone has a gun fam, the streets are safe.

Clown? You can't even form an independent thought.
 
Clearly the solution to Mexico's problems are putting more guns in the streets.
Clown,

No.

The idea is to give unarmed citizens the ability to lawfully employ the most effective means of self defense.
 
Clearly the solution to Mexico's problems are putting more guns in the streets.
Clown,
Depends where those guns are going.

A gun is a just a tool.

IF those guns were going to law abiding (for the most part) residents, then the cartels would have much greater problems then the corrupt federal and state authorities.
 
Back
Top Bottom