Would not carrying shoulder-fired missile systems in public--along with our bludgeons and knives and guns--make us even safer than merely carrying unaccompanied guns? If not, why not? If guns = safe, and more guns = safer, then isn't it axiomatic that the widespread, national personal deployment of advanced weapons systems and bludgeons and knives, along with guns make us that much safer? If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. And besides, WWJCC: what would Jesus conceal-carry
>>78946657
John Lott proved more guns less crime. There's a Hadag Nahash song ("Rok Po," "Only Here [in Israel]," that if you are walking past a store and see a guy inside with a huge machibe gun you feel safe.
>>78946657
Cool bait, retard.
A MANPAD is not going to protect you from a mugger.
It's time to go home.
>>78946657
The reason for the right to bear arms is not "safety."
The second amendment does not say anything about safety, but it does specifically reference a free society.
>>78946657
Nice try, but you can't apply algebra to all situations in life.
See
>>78946911
>>78946911
What if the mugger is mugging you using an A-10?
So guns don't make people safer. Then why do you whitebaggers always claim that they do? Got no counterfactuals asswipes?
>>78946657
We should be able to carry shoulder fired missile systems in public though. There is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to drive a tank in a public square and I'm really tired of getting slippery slope'd by you libshits.
We're marching back up the slope and giving everyone MANPADS.
>>78946657
>MISSILE LAUNCHER
If da crips roll around in T-55s, sure.
Otherwise, it'd have no effect, save for the statistically insignificant accident
>>78946657
>And besides, WWJCC: what would Jesus conceal-carry
He urged his followers to arm themselves, and if they had no money, to sell their clothes to arm themselves.
>>78946657
I have always wondered
What did Kubrik mean with this scene?
>>78946657
What movie is that from again? The shining?
