Brad

Regular
  • Content count

    30,537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Brad

  • Rank
    Legend
  • Birthday 09/17/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,814 profile views
  1. Andrew doesn't like me because he doesn't agree with my views. Even if I have valid points he just ignores them and degrades me. It's not my fault he became one of these pathetic kids that are butt hurt by everything that doesn't line up with their point of view. It's sad that we live in a country where we are no longer allowed to have an opinion. Some opinions are definitely wrong or right but a lot are all up to debate. According to Andrew it's his way or you're ignorant
  2. I forgot that's what the game was even about because the last few games weren't like that
  3. It's funny how little time it takes to research this stuff http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
  4. Do I really have to spell this out. Banning guns does not stop gun violence. There is nothing but evidence that shows this. There is no evidence that shows otherwise
  5. I'm disruptive because my opinion is different. If I said guns were bad and Obama was the greatest thing since the wheel you'd have no problems with me. But because I think differently you all find me to be a problem. It's not like in going around saying everyone is an asshole, or telling people to go kill themselves. If my opinions offended too fucking bad. I'm not spreading hate. Not like I said gays need to die or I was happy white officers kill black people. Hell I got called out for hate speech when all I said was Islamist have been fighting us for a thousand years. That's not hate that is a fact. Islamist have battled Christians/catholics in europe, in the middle east, in Africa and now here. If that is hate speech I guess a lot of history professors are going to jail
  6. So outside of my opinions still no reason to ban me? Gotcha
  7. Sorry you think you're better me. I know it's a lot easier to just degrade people when you're wrong but whatever works for you. That gun thread is a perfect example. It's an issue that you are obviously out of your element yet you spit out nonsense trying to make me look bad. Sorry but you haven't. The sad part is so many people on the bored chose to be stubborn instead of actually listening to anything. You can say I'm stubborn but I'm the only one consistently open to things. Half the time I've been ridiculed what times when you all just jumped to conclusions or weren't going to give someone a chance. You all would make really shitty jurors
  8. Considering the size of the forum, it's not very telling when 4 people are saying 1 is wrong. But once again, I've given facts plenty of times only to be ignored. That's why I ignore your a lot too.
  9. If I wasnt attacked for having an opinion all the time I wouldn't be so harsh. I'm pushed into a corner constantly on this thread and then you guys get all pissy when I fight back.
  10. Did you ever think my condescending attitude comes from all of you shitting on everything I say? It's actually pathetic at this point how bad you guys talk to me. In the gun topic I've given multiple sources for facts, given real examples and thrown in a few hypothetical questions and all I get is I'm immature and that I'm wrong. I've seen no real comebacks or valid statements from your side other than it just makes sense. So explain to me how I'm the one who can't debate. So many times I have given valid arguments only to be told I'm wrong but no proof from the other side.
  11. I think it's hilarious that you guys are voting to get rid of me when none of you have come up with a good reason for me to be banned. If being pro gun and pro life is all you have on me make this a democratic political forum. Until then you have no valid reason to ban me. Oh wait. You have all the made up stuff about me that you guys have assumed over the years by taking what I say and twisting it. You guys laugh every time I say this but have never proven yourself right and I've clarified my stances over and over only to be ignored.
  12. They are out dated but the bill of rights is still relevant. Every one of them. Yes the guns aren't the same but the need for them is no different
  13. Saw this post on Facebook Ok. I'm going to have to fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid shit is being supported. First off, most of you have no clue what an assault rifle is! It's not your fault you don't know, I will educate you. An assault rifle is a rifle with the ability to go fully automatic. That means if you hold the trigger down, it keeps going bang until you release the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammo. The first assault rifle came about during WWII with the German Stg44. It had the power of a rifle with nearly the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun (full auto). Inspired out of this WWII era gun came the most well knows assault rifles of all time, the AK-47 and the M-16. Both had the ability for fully automatic fire. When people say they want a ban on assault weapons they think they are banning fully automatic rifles from civilian hands. The problem is that these weapons are ALREADY BANNED! See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986. Civilians cannot obtain these weapons. They are for military and police use almost exclusively. So what is this AR-15 if not an assault rifle? It is a standard rifle that LOOKS LIKE a fully automatic M-16, but does not function like one. It does the same thing as any other standard rifle. One trigger pull = one bang. Most of you are not stupid enough to want to ban a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle (pictured on top), but cry that the AR-15 (pictured on bottom) is a deadly assault rifle when they are literally capable of the same thing. Same ammo, same capacity, same function. The aesthetic differences between the two are what some want to ban and have banned in the past, which if you look at them, are pants-on-head-retarded to consider deadly features. Some of the things that made a standard functioning rifle considered an assault weapon are: A folding or telescoping stock - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A pistol grip - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A bayonet mount - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). A flash suppressor - (does not make the weapon any deadlier). You see what I'm getting at? The weapons you actually want banned are ALREADY BANNED. The weapons used in these attacks are regular functioning rifles designed to look like their full auto, military counterparts. So if the AR-15 isn't more dangerous than any other standard rifle, then why is is the one being used in all of these shootings? Simple. It just happens to be the most popular rifle in the country. It's the iPhone of rifles. It is an affordable, accurate rifle that is easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it. It isn't any easier to acquire than other rifles, just more available. To wrap this up, If you support banning fully automatic assault rifles, fine. You support a law that is already in place for good reason. I agree we generally don't need machine guns. However, if you think we should ban standard functioning rifles because of things like how you hold the grip or how adjustable the buttstock is, you are an idiot! Consider yourselves educated on this matter.
  14. Agreed. And most gun enthusiasts would agree. Some won't but I wanna say they are pretty slim. I could be wrong but I think an nra poll was done on that. The problem is that's not what people are after. Most want to jump straight to the gun. In realty, a semi automatic rifle is only as fast as a person can pull the trigger which is the same as a pistol. More people will probably survive a shot from a pistol but the overall impact won't be any different. It will still cause rage and sadness and outcries. Then the next step is pistols? Its a downward spiral lawful citizens don't want to be a victim of.